Why do people fetishize Magic Tea Party

[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.

So if I am making a game, I am not going to encourage DMs to make up a bunch of shit just to fuck with characters in the hope than none of them actually care enough to be upset that sand throwing is thousands of times more effective than anything their character can do.

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.

Or you know, is written in the book. As a rule. By the game designer.

[JonSetanta]

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.

So you make the "attack roll" a static value with +10 instead of a d20.
It makes sense that when aiming at a door or treasure chest you'll never miss.

[TiaC]

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.

You see, this is not a DM advice forum, it is a game design forum. MTP is a bad thing in game design because no one needs rules to come up with MTP. If you write rules under the expectation that everyone will change them, then your product is worthless.

Zak, your disconnect sounds similar. You seem to be a good GM with a good group, so things work well for you. However, there are a lot of games out there with bad or just new GMs. This leads to nonsensical or unbalancing rulings that make the game less fun to play.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Other problems with MTPing stunts other than what was said:

[*] MTPing freeform stunts often leads to narrative filler and padding, because no one wants to be denied a bonus because they tried a creative but succinct stunt. Or they don't actually have an action more novel than 'kick the orc', but they think that if they spend 10-15 seconds talking about how they focused their chi, waited for the maximum moment of recoil from the orc, then leapt over the table for a jumpkick they'll get the stunt bonus. Which is fine in that one instant, but from then-on out you've created a standard where anyone who wants a stunt bonus will have to halt the game for the narrative and you'll have a steadily ramped-up standard for the bonus.

You can see it in games like Exalted where people deliberately pad their actions in order to keep getting bonuses. Read an Exalted chatlog or forum post sometime. Shit can get pretty ridiculous. Even in forums where that's acceptable like MUSHes or IRC, I've ran more than my share of D&D combats where I had to repeatedly pause the action in order to let some guy with a 800 character post play catchup.

[*] MTPing stunts has a high chance of fucking over certain character concepts or archetypes. It's just plain harder for Cyclops to throw out stunts than Wolverine. Or for Green Arrow than Batman. Or for Pyro than Iceman. If you have a narrow archetype or one that doesn't lend itself to flashy effects or it's just not in your personality to confound your enemies by quickdrawing a tiny holdout pistol in your ass then you're even more behind. If I was making a Team Fortress: The RPG then I would expect players of Medics to stunt the worst, both in relative special effects and volume.

[Zak S]

You see, this is not a DM advice forum, it is a game design forum. MTP is a bad thing in game design because no one needs rules to come up with MTP. If you write rules under the expectation that everyone will change them, then your product is worthless.

Zak, your disconnect sounds similar. You seem to be a good GM with a good group, so things work well for you. However, there are a lot of games out there with bad or just new GMs. This leads to nonsensical or unbalancing rulings that make the game less fun to play.

Oh I disagree (and this goes for Kaelik too):

I think games without training wheels from the start need to exist. Many great GMs are built this way, by being told they will need to learn the vital skill of rules adjudication and then doing it.

Games with training wheels for people who are scared also need to exist, but this....

"If you write rules under the expectation that everyone will change them, then your product is worthless."

This is simply incorrect and illogical. I change rules from published versions all the time, but I am SUPER glad that somebody went and wrote 700-odd spells and 400 monsters so I didn't have to.

This is how suits are sold: you buy one off the rack, you then have it tailored.

Asserting the original suit was "worthless" isn't rational. It is worthless to the customer who assumed it would fit but it should never be sold that way.

[Zak S]

Other problems with MTPing stunts other than what was said:

[*] MTPing freeform stunts often leads to narrative filler and padding, because no one wants to be denied a bonus because they tried a creative but succinct stunt. Or they don't actually have an action more novel than 'kick the orc', but they think that if they spend 10-15 seconds talking about how they focused their chi, waited for the maximum moment of recoil from the orc, then leapt over the table for a jumpkick they'll get the stunt bonus. Which is fine in that one instant, but from then-on out you've created a standard where anyone who wants a stunt bonus will have to halt the game for the narrative and you'll have a steadily ramped-up standard for the bonus.

You can see it in games like Exalted where people deliberately pad their actions in order to keep getting bonuses. Read an Exalted chatlog or forum post sometime. Shit can get pretty ridiculous. Even in forums where that's acceptable like MUSHes or IRC, I've ran more than my share of D&D combats where I had to repeatedly pause the action in order to let some guy with a 800 character post play catchup.

[*] MTPing stunts has a high chance of fucking over certain character concepts or archetypes. It's just plain harder for Cyclops to throw out stunts than Wolverine. Or for Green Arrow than Batman. Or for Pyro than Iceman. If you have a narrow archetype or one that doesn't lend itself to flashy effects or it's just not in your personality to confound your enemies by quickdrawing a tiny holdout pistol in your ass then you're even more behind. If I was making a Team Fortress: The RPG then I would expect players of Medics to stunt the worst, both in relative special effects and volume.

Again: if these things happen at your table, you need a different game. People who don't have these things happen do not need that game and all the paragraphs devoted to making your game happen in the middle of their game make their game harder to reference and play with for them.

[Kaelik]

I think games without training wheels from the start need to exist.

...

Asserting the original suit was "worthless" isn't rational. It is worthless to the customer who assumed it would fit but it should never be sold that way.

So just to be clear, playing a rulings not rules game is substantially superior to all those shitty bad people who play games that are tactically challenging while focusing on player agency?

See, this is why I hate whiny shits who talk about "to each their own" without fail you always actually mean "don't criticize me, but actually, yeah, the way you play the game is shitty and you are a loser."

[Zak S]

So just to be clear, playing a rulings not rules game is substantially superior to all those shitty bad people who play games that are tactically challenging while focusing on player agency?

Not at all in any way even a little. You seem to have not read what I typed. I repeatedly refused to make a judgment call about what style of game was better, I merely stated that there needs to be different games that handle both ways of playing.

Though I think "games that are tactically challenging in a way facilitated by rules mastery and on character customizability" would be a better way to describe the kind of play that would beat at odds with my preferred Rulings-not-rules method.


I will assume you are not trolling: please re-read my comments up to this point and if you do not see where I say that, ask a question and I will clarify.
__
Also, in order to make sure you are sane, I need to know whether you're capable of grasping the idea that a suit made to be altered is not worthless.

If you understand that, please type words to that effect.

If you do not, ask questions.

If you do neither, I will have to assume you are not a real person and therefore any attempt to talk to you would be pointless.

[Stinktopus]

I would like to thank Zak for single-handedly destroying all stereotypes about the sort of people who argue about stuff on the internet.

"Shut up, virgin!"

"I'm literally surrounded by porn stars."

Also, while Kaelik is most certainly NOT a real person, he has made statements about how "some" or "many" people do things. He has not been as universal in his proclamations as you seem to claim. What he HAS done is voice the concerns of a market segment that you are apparently not a part of.

The popularity of 3.5/Pathfinder products testifies to the existence of a sizeable fan base for rules-heavy systems. Dismissing that entire fanbase as "cowardly" or "noobs" is very elitist.

[Previn]

You see, this is not a DM advice forum, it is a game design forum. MTP is a bad thing in game design because no one needs rules to come up with MTP. If you write rules under the expectation that everyone will change them, then your product is worthless.

If your game relies too much on MTP, and basically submits you to the whims of the DM, it is generally a bad thing. DungeonWorld is an example of this. For some people this works, but it's really the barest level above cops and robbers and has all kinds of issue that stem from over use of MTP (i.e. What was your check result? BEARS.)

If you have rules that output results that are worse than MTP, or don't produce an acceptable outcome, you really should just drop the rules and let the MTP work. 3.x Diplomacy would be an example of this.

The DM uses MTP when he decides which enemies will attack what PCs and in what way, and that's a fine use of MTP because rules to handle that would slow the game down without really adding anything, and there are enough other rules around encounters that you don't get a BEARS result from MTP in that situation (at least in D&D).

There needs to be judicious and well reasoned use of MTP, but MTP isn't automatically a bad thing.

[Zak S]

Also, while Kaelik is most certainly NOT a real person, he has made statements about how "some" or "many" people do things. He has not been as universal in his proclamations as you seem to claim.

No, incorrect: he said a rule system designed to be customized was "worthless". That is a universal proclamation--"without worth". This is like a Size M person deciding Size L shirts were "worthless"--it is so breathtaking in its lack of awareness of the human condition and basic observable realities it makes you wonder how the person making it manages to find the keyboard to type on.

The popularity of 3.5/Pathfinder products testifies to the existence of a sizeable fan base for rules-heavy systems. Dismissing that entire fanbase as "cowardly" or "noobs" is very elitist.

I have never said they were all cowards or n00bs, merely noted that the only justifications given so far for NEEDING (rather than merely preferring) heavy rules in this thread are:

1. Fear of a GMing wrong
2. Fear of an unjust GM
or
3. Inexperience


(To which I'd add: tournament play or other competitive play with strangers.)

That word "needing" is very important.

You can like a ruleset for any good reason.

But there are a very limited number of reasons to be unable to use anything but a given ruleset.

You like Path? Ok, so do I. That's a common thing, and reasonable.

You cannot get a functional game out of a rules-lite system? This points to more specific issues.

[Kaelik]

Not at all in any way even a little. You seem to have not read what I typed. I repeatedly refused to make a judgment call about what style of game was better, I merely stated that there needs to be different games that handle both ways of playing.

No, you said that a few times. But you also said the things I just directly quoted, where you specifically said a bunch of things about how your version is better.

Though I think "games that are tactically challenging and focus on rules mastery and on character customizability" would be a better way to describe the kind of play that would beat at odds with Rulings-not-rules.

Rules Mastery and character customizability are two things, player agency is a different one, but they all rely on consistent rules to some extent.

I will assume you are not trolling: please re-read my comments up to this point and if you do not see where I say that.

You are an idiot who needs to learn how to read. I specifically said that you did say all that bullshit about how all ways of gaming are equal. You just also don't mean it, which is why you slip and say all the things that I quoted about how other ways of gaming are shit.

Also, in order to make sure you are sane, I need to know whether you're capable of grasping the idea that a suit made to be altered is not worthless.

No you monkey fuck retard. I am not going to abide by your stupid non-sequitar bullshit conditions just because you are a disingenuous ass. If you choose to ignore people who point out that you are full of shit, then everyone will see that you are full of shit.

You are the one who specifically said that games should never be made to focus on player agency and have solid rules, you are the one who calls games that you don't like "training wheels" to imply the inferiority of those who play and MC them. You do not get to then set bullshit conditions like:

In order to prove to me that you are sane, I demand in all my great authority that you agree with the following statement:

People named Zak S are pompous assholes who think that forcing agreement with bullshit non-sequitars that have nothing to do with the conversation is a valid method to justify ignoring arguments.

[PhoneLobster]

the idea that a suit made to be altered is not worthless.

Talking to Kaelik might be a bad idea in general.

But your tailored suit metaphor is deeply flawed.

Sure a suit that needs some tailoring might not be worthless but it is worth less than a suit that does not need tailoring.

And the more substantial the alterations the suit needs, the less worthwhile the original suit is. And at SOME point on that scale the unaltered suit ends up actually being worth nothing or even less.

Every time your "suit" needs a correction, much less a vast structural addition or replacement like "entirely new god damn sleeves because the old ones were made out of cheese and ear wax" there has been a significant flaw in suit design.

And for that matter if you WERE building a "suit" INTENDED for custom alterations it would look different to the RPG "suits" we see on the market today.

A genuine "made to be modified" RPG would actually be a large modular toolkit of rules. In a less stupid way than D&D 5E essentially lied about being. But still. Maybe more like GURPS likes to think it is.

Of course any actual suggestion that resorting to in play MTP is the same as having a tailor designed/modified RPG rules set is not really a very adequate metaphor either. If you had a genuinely hypothetically perfect tailor made RPG rules set you would very likely never have to use MTP in play for your specific purposes ever.

[Zak S]

No, you said that a few times. But you also said the things I just directly quoted, where you specifically said a bunch of things about how your version is better.

???

Kaelik, you appear, again, to have not addressed any of the points made, assumed bad faith, refused to answer questions, and pretended the objections to your points aren't there.

I suggest you find two or three people in your life whose opinion you trust and whose counsel you respect-someone who does not know anything about role-playing games or gaming, and show them this conversation.

Show them all the pages, and ask them to read them carefully. Ask them whether they think you are being reasonable and fair.

And whatever they say, I encourage you to listen and take seriously.

If anyone else has any questions, I will provide answers.

If anyone has any objections to specific points I've made that were not already addressed, please quote me and then I will address them.

[Kaelik]

No, incorrect: he said a rule system designed to be customized was "worthless". That is a universal proclamation--"without worth". This is like a Size M person deciding Size L shirts were "worthless"--it is so breathtaking in its lack of awareness of the human condition and basic observable realities it makes you wonder how the person making it manages to find the keyboard to type on.

You know what is a breathtaking lack of awareness? Your complete inability to fucking read you psychotic lying sack of shit.

I never said that at any point, and you are a lying sack of shit.

The following sentence will be the first and second use of the term "worthless" by me in this thread: While you Zak S are not personally worthless as a human being, it is only because your body will feed microbes subsequent to your death, because while currently alive, you are of negative net worth, because you are a lying sack of shit.

[Zak S]

No, incorrect: he said a rule system designed to be customized was "worthless". That is a universal proclamation--"without worth". This is like a Size M person deciding Size L shirts were "worthless"--it is so breathtaking in its lack of awareness of the human condition and basic observable realities it makes you wonder how the person making it manages to find the keyboard to type on.

You know what is a breathtaking lack of awareness? Your complete inability to fucking read you psychotic lying sack of shit.

I never said that at any point, and you are a lying sack of shit.

The following sentence will be the first and second use of the term "worthless" by me in this thread: While you Zak S are not personally worthless as a human being, it is only because your body will feed microbes subsequent to your death, because while currently alive, you are of negative net worth, because you are a lying sack of shit.

Ah,I apologize, I confused you with TiaC.

Anyway, what you said was:

"So if I am making a game, I am not going to encourage DMs to make up a bunch of shit just to fuck with characters in the hope than none of them actually care enough to be upset that sand throwing is thousands of times more effective than anything their character can do."

Your breathtaking lack of awareness is on display in the phrases

"make up a bunch of shit just to fuck with characters"

and

"hope than none of them actually care enough to be upset that sand throwing is thousands of times more effective than anything their character can do"
.

And, really there, more in the tone than in the words because of course all challenges in RPGs could be considered "shit made up just to fuck with characters"

Anyway, my accidental misquote here notwithstanding, my advice in the previous comment still stands.

[Kaelik]

I suggest you find two or three people in your life whose opinion you trust and whose counsel you respect-someone who does not know anything about role-playing games or gaming, and show them this conversation.

I see that you are actually not here to have an actual conversation at all, and that you think your completely bullshit insults based on your complete inability to read is so wonderful that you refuse to actually have a conversation in any form that isn't bullshit high-road insults about how everyone else is so shitty and you are the best.

Consequently, I will not waste my time reading your boring worthless drivel any more. If your apology for baseless lies and declarations of my insanity for not agreeing with you and need to seek help makes it into anyone else's quotes, I might take you off ignore.

[Zak S]

the idea that a suit made to be altered is not worthless.

Sure a suit that needs some tailoring might not be worthless but it is worth less than a suit that does not need tailoring.

If you had a genuinely hypothetically perfect tailor made RPG rules set you would very likely never have to use MTP in play for your specific purposes ever.

I've already addressed these issues of the hypothetical "perfect suit" above.

If you don't know where, you can re-read and let me know if you can't find them.

[PhoneLobster]

I've already addressed these issues of the hypothetical "perfect suit" above.

That is your first use of the word perfect in this thread.

Also only one of the things you quoted refers to hypothetically perfect rules at all.

There is no reason at all that we cannot sit down, recognize shades of gray exist and still say that there are plenty of terribly written rules sets that require so much fixing that they are the same or worse than starting with nothing at all.

You can even reasonably sit down, admit a role for MTP within formalized rules systems, and still call a rules system out as failing at some point by using MTP in an inappropriate place or way.

[Zak S]

I've already addressed these issues of the hypothetical "perfect suit" above.

That is your first use of the word perfect in this thread.

Yes, but I addressed what the analogy refers to: what I see as the difficulty and impracticability of waiting around for someone else to make a game for my taste and abilities and my group's taste and abilities.

There is no reason at all that we cannot sit down, recognize shades of gray exist and still say that there are plenty of terribly written rules sets that require so much fixing that they are the same or worse than starting with nothing at all.

Sure, though it is rare that I've seen a rule that no group has a use for. Not unheard of, but rare.

You can even reasonably sit down, admit a role for MTP within formalized rules systems, and still call a rules system out as failing at some point by using MTP in an inappropriate place or way.

Yes, but in many cases the line between this reasonable thing and unreasonable things adjacent to it are very thin.

Again: anyone failing to grasp the difference between a problem for them and a problem for all players needs to be scrupulously observed in order for that conversation to make sense.

And people need to realize that a game existing whose target audience they aren't part of is not a crime, or even a problem.

[PhoneLobster]

Sure, though it is rare that I've seen a rule that no group has a use for. Not unheard of, but rare.

This appears to be the lynch pin of your current argument.

It is a very bad lynch pin.

You are effectively making an argument that as long as someone, anyone, likes a rule it is somehow definitively a good rule and immune to criticism or improvement.

It is an argument which if accepted undermines ANY capability to talk about improving RPGs and RPG rules, or even just discussing them meaningfully at all.

It is also very very silly just on the basic face of it. An argument generally not accepted in serious circles past a very early age group. Because someone somewhere likes anything and EVERYTHING. I mean fuck, SOMEONE out there actually enjoys watching "Everybody Loves Raymond". Those sick crazy fuckers. But it doesn't justify that program's insipid existence.

[Zak S]

Sure, though it is rare that I've seen a rule that no group has a use for. Not unheard of, but rare.

This appears to be the lynch pin of your current argument.

It is a very bad lynch pin.

You are effectively making an argument that as long as someone, anyone, likes a rule it is somehow definitively a good rule and immune to criticism or improvement.

It is an argument which if accepted undermines ANY capability to talk about improving RPGs and RPG rules, or even just discussing them meaningfully at all.

Not at all, as a long history of DIY RPG people productively building and discussing game improvements attests.

Merely instead of defaulting to saying (dumb):

"In order for x game to be good and not bad, we have to make y improvement"

Default to saying (smart)

"In order for x game to provide A,B and C to people whose capabilities are D, E and F, we have to make y improvement"

The second statement is not only fairer and saner and truer, it provides more information and provokes a more complex discussion.

[virgil]

Default to saying (smart)

"In order for x game to provide A,B and C to people whose capabilities are D, E and F, we have to make y improvement"

The second statement is not only fairer and saner and truer, it provides more information and provokes a more complex discussion.

You'll inevitably create something like the above, and I've seen it happen before; where someone comes up a bad rule, and they shut down all debate with naysayers with "it's not for you." Focusing on the variables and context of a rule seems doomed to bog down discussion with everyone trying to nail down what "is" is. Not to say it doesn't have its uses, as the genre and overall structure of your game is important; but that playing field is usually at least mostly circumscribed with the base system the rule is within.

[Zak S]

You'll inevitably create something like the above, and I've seen it happen before; where someone comes up a bad rule, and they shut down all debate with naysayers with "it's not for you." Focusing on the variables and context of a rule seems doomed to bog down discussion with everyone trying to nail down what "is" is. Not to say it doesn't have its uses, as the genre and overall structure of your game is important; but that playing field is usually at least mostly circumscribed with the base system the rule is within.

This all seems very vague.

"X is bad" is usually inadequate and incorrect.

Saying what the result of a given rule is in various contexts with different kinds of groups is far more important than people venting their frustration with a rule by declaring it "bad" because they didn't like it or because they know other people who don't.

If you don't like a tool and someone else does it really isn't for you and it really is for them.

If you can show them a tool that works better for them and you, too, you have made an objective improvement.

If you merely show them a tool that's better for you and not them, and declare it better period, you've done nothing except demonstrate clinical egocentrism.

[Mistborn]

So yeah first let me answer the OPs question. Why do people wank long and hard to the magic tea? It's because they have warm motherlike GMs, notice how when ever the disadvantages of MTP come up on certain forums it's always shouted down with cries of "asshole GM". Because they assume when they describe whatever stunt they want to pull the GM will be so taken with the idea that they'll hand then success on a silver platter, and they assume that this is because they are special and creative rather than the reality which is that they are being coddled.

This is why the Dens usual line of argument against MTP "it's unfair and arbitrary" and "it allows the GM to bend you over deliverance style" rings hollow to people so often. When a player proposes a MTP solution that solution is going to usually seem genera appropriate to him at the very least. Thus there little room for the GM to say no without it seeming unfair and arbitrarily dickish, and most GM don't want to be arbitrary dicks. What we need to somehow communicate to people is that arbitrary success and arbitrary failure are equally disempowering to players.

Also Zak you are being fucktarded. You are the one who is running the game with training wheels, and that's fine your players aren't heavily invested in the whole "RPG" thing. You're style of play in not better than anyone else's and you deserve worse than the Kaeliking you just received.