Why do people fetishize Magic Tea Party

[Mistborn]

Frank you are incorrect: by this logic a bike should always have training wheels and the bike designer "isn't doing his job" if he doesn't provide this tool that actually gets in the way for many people.

Training wheels should exist, they should not be on all bikes

Wow you are a genuinely terrible human being.

So ignoring the hideous cockmongler for the time being, this thread should tell us one thing. The Den needs a better set of arguments to deal with people like Zak, because this isn't an argument our side has won conclusively the way we have with Fighters vs Wizards. theRPGsite is a real place, the OSR movement is a stronger enemy of progress now than it was 5 years ago, and games like Bear World still get extremely favorable press. If our goal is to make TTRPGs better than we're doing it poorly.

Our arguments against MTP ring hollow, because peoples assumptions/experiences about MTP is not that they're being dicked over arbitrarily. People's assumption is that MTP judgments will be in their favor to a ridiculous degree. In order to prevail in this debate we're going need better arguments one's that actually address people preconceived notions.

[Username17]

So ignoring the hideous cockmongler for the time being, this thread should tell us one thing. The Den needs a better set of arguments to deal with people like Zak, because this isn't an argument our side has won conclusively the way we have with Fighters vs Wizards.

This is true. I mean, Zak's training wheel argument is laughable on the face of it. Training wheels are a stability mechanism, and all bikes have stability mechanisms. Many bikes use gyroscopic stabilization rather than weight distribution, but it's still a stability mechanism. The RPG equivalent would be to point out that Shadowrun didn't have a damage roll and D&D didn't have a soak roll and claiming that thus conflict rules were unnecessary. It's so obviously a wrong argument that it's difficult to formulate a coherent counter argument that isn't just pointing and laughing.

But we do need a counter argument. Because the fallacies of the ruleslite crowd are often repeated and sound similar enough to things that make sense that it is often hard to wrap one's mind around where exactly they've gone completely off the rails.

For starters, the Applejacks argument of "I like it, therefore it's good enough" is in fact a particularly weird form of the informal fallacy "argumentum ad populum." It's an invalid form of argument. Every person will like some things more and other things less, so whether something is on the white side or the black side of the line for you says nothing about whether it could be improved or not. Fuck, it doesn't even say whether you'd like something else more.

It's not just invalid, it's obviously invalid. But we don't have a simple beat down for it, so it keeps bubbling to the surface like a turd with too much fat.

-Username17

[shadzar]

That's why making rules "asshole proof" is a stupid idea.

Oh look the usual accusation that rules limitiations are only for asshole GMs, rather than useful tools for good GMs who aren't fucking omniscient.

a good GM doesn't need Skip Willaims, Gary Gygax, Dave Arneson, Mike Mearls, James Wyatt, Jonathan tweet, Dave Noonan, Monte Cook, Rob Hiensoo, Steve JAckson, etc, etc, etc; in order to run an RPG. they need most common sense, and understanding of the genre it is set in, and their players.

all the product wankery and designer worship, needs to keep its cult back in the closet where it belongs.

you people need to put some windex on your buttsore from having bad DMs, and if the problem for needing such concrete rules is because YOU are the GM, and people are telling you that your rulings are bad (thus making you a bad GM), then stop being a fucking asshole, and stop playing RPGs since you clearly don't understand them.

RPG are literally a co-op make-believe game, and that is it. the "rules" are just some common ground that you agree on when you set down to play a certain system. you don't have to agree the right way with ANY of those listed above that has their name in a published game book.

1st and foremost an RPG is a game. games are meant to be played (player character), and "play" is something done for fun.

[Cyberzombie]

a good GM doesn't need Skip Willaims, Gary Gygax, Dave Arneson, Mike Mearls, James Wyatt, Jonathan tweet, Dave Noonan, Monte Cook, Rob Hiensoo, Steve JAckson, etc, etc, etc; in order to run an RPG. they need most common sense, and understanding of the genre it is set in, and their players.

Sure they do. Every good GM I've played under has GMed under some kind of existing system. It may have been heavily houseruled, but in general GMs running 100% homebrew systems tend to suck.

Designing a good RPG is a lot of work, and most good DMs just don't have the time to do so.

And while MTP is great for one shot stunts, it's never a good idea to use that to create a recurring rule throughout your game, because recurring rules take a lot of thought and number crunching. It's never a good idea to come up with that on the fly and be stuck with it for the rest of the game.

[silva]

That hits the nail on the head. Many prominent Posters here are deeply afraid of trusting anything at all to the GM.

Anything that lets the GM decide something about a player's action without a dice roll is called "Mother may I", and painted as a "Bad ThingTM" by some here.

The idea that many players are playing with friends, and not strangers and assholes, and that GMs generally do not try to abuse their power to hurt their friends, is often dismissed.

In short, those people usually try to design for the worst RPG case - playing with an asshole DM who will use every loophole in the rules to personally ruin the game for you. And they think that rules can be made that will make it so that even such GMs can't do anything but run a good enjoyable game.

The idea that asshole GMs are not a rules Problem, but a personality Problem, and have to be dealt with with other means (such as not playing with assholes) is dismissed as well.

But that type of friend will complain about any GM decision. "Why did the ogre attack my character, and not A's? Do you like him more than me?" The only way for that type to be happy is to codify the rules to the extent that the GM won't be making any decision without a dice roll or rules check.

What I am saying is that for some here, the target audience for their rules is a rather extreme case of a borderline disfunctional or worse gaming group, not a group of friends who want to have fun and respect each other.

This.

[zugschef]

So ignoring the hideous cockmongler for the time being, this thread should tell us one thing. The Den needs a better set of arguments to deal with people like Zak, because this isn't an argument our side has won conclusively the way we have with Fighters vs Wizards.

This is true. I mean, Zak's training wheel argument is laughable on the face of it. Training wheels are a stability mechanism, and all bikes have stability mechanisms. Many bikes use gyroscopic stabilization rather than weight distribution, but it's still a stability mechanism. The RPG equivalent would be to point out that Shadowrun didn't have a damage roll and D&D didn't have a soak roll and claiming that thus conflict rules were unnecessary. It's so obviously a wrong argument that it's difficult to formulate a coherent counter argument that isn't just pointing and laughing.

But we do need a counter argument. Because the fallacies of the ruleslite crowd are often repeated and sound similar enough to things that make sense that it is often hard to wrap one's mind around where exactly they've gone completely off the rails.

For starters, the Applejacks argument of "I like it, therefore it's good enough" is in fact a particularly weird form of the informal fallacy "argumentum ad populum." It's an invalid form of argument. Every person will like some things more and other things less, so whether something is on the white side or the black side of the line for you says nothing about whether it could be improved or not. Fuck, it doesn't even say whether you'd like something else more.

It's not just invalid, it's obviously invalid. But we don't have a simple beat down for it, so it keeps bubbling to the surface like a turd with too much fat.

-Username17

What are we actually arguing here?

I think one of the problems to "win" an argument against people who don't understand the Oberoni Fallacy, is that they are shifty. I mean the Oberoni Fallacy itself points at that. They contradict themselves. And I quite honestly don't believe that the argument about "fighter vs. wizard" is "won" either because of the same reason: These people have no problem with lying to themselves.

You can't convince someone of something when s/he doesn't listen to your arguments and/or lies to her/himself. I really think that the issue at hand is just too complex for these people to either understand and/or for them to want to at least hear or read your arguments.

You can't convince a child of the fact that Santa doesn't exist. At least not with conclusive arguments. It can't follow your line of reasoning and it doesn't want to be convinced. You can convince it if it knows you very well and you have a relationship. You don't have a relationship with people you are arguing with on the internet.

[Kaelik]

And you WERE attempting to be derogatory. Or at the very least deeply and offensively dishonest and my patience with your "I don't understand examples" and "I never meant to be an asshole" and "I will NEVER fucking explain how the hell I imagine "I Just Like It" is a good fucking reason for anything for anyone over the age of FOUR to put forward in ANY discussion about ANYTHING" is worn thoroughly out.

You have accused people of being bad GMs at every opportunity in this thread and you do NOT get a free pass forever.

Haha PL. See, if you didn't just assume that everyone who disagrees with me is automatically a nice guy and you read any of his previous bullshit you wouldn't have wasted your time.

[Fuchs]

That's why making rules "asshole proof" is a stupid idea.

Oh look the usual accusation that rules limitiations are only for asshole GMs, rather than useful tools for good GMs who aren't fucking omniscient. Read the actual Good GMing FAQ again Fuchs. Try and get through the first two points again without getting your head stuck up your ass.

Not only for asshole GMs. But limits such as "no artifacts for starting chracters" or limits to wealth according to level are not needed when you have no players who will use their absence to break the game. As far as omniscience is concerned, "listen to your players, ask them what you can do better" works well enough to make you aware of what your players want.

Individual groups and players are able to handle stuff in games that others cannot, sometimes simply with a gentlemen's agreement.

So by Gentlemen's agreement. You mean some fucking rules. I mean hell. That's even an actual question on the god damn Good GMing FAQ in the opening post. Which was linked in your quote no less.

I wasn't aware we were talking about rules in the context of being more than game mechanics here. "Don't be an asshole to your friends if you want to keep them as friends" isn't a game mechanic, it's a general "rule" for social interaction.

[Username17]

Fuch's "don't be a dick" fallacy is particularly tiresome. Making people sad is being dick to them, so following rules that make them sad is something you're not supposed to do. But wait! Changing the rules on people in the middle of a game undermines the shared activity and is also being a dick to people! Holy shit fuck! It's exactly like Fuchs was repeatedly using the If By Whiskey fallacy to support any and all positions on any and all topics by using purely emotional appeals to friendship and dickishness without having any coherent logical position at all. Because of course, that is exactly what he is doing.

It's a noxious blend of ad hominem and shifting goalposts. There's really no point in even attempting to engage with it. Any behavior he doesn't approve of is "being a dick." And that behavior could be following the rules, not following the rules, changing the rules, or whatever. If a monster attacks a player character and the player doesn't think it should have, that's the player being a dick if Fuchs happens to sympathize with the MC, and it's the MC being a dick if Fuchs happens to sympathize with the player. And even though such a contention easily could have been avoided by having some sort of system in place that provided for less ambiguity in monster targeting, Fuchs is confident that you don't need any because he can always just make snap judgements about who is "being a dick" and needs to be voted off the island until everyone sees eye to eye. Or Fuchs is the only one left on the island, whichever comes first.

-Username17

[zugschef]

If a monster attacks a player character and the player doesn't think it should have, that's the player being a dick if Fuchs happens to sympathize with the MC, and it's the MC being a dick if Fuchs happens to sympathize with the player. And even though such a contention easily could have been avoided by having some sort of system in place that provided for less ambiguity in monster targeting, Fuchs is confident that you don't need any because he can always just make snap judgements about who is "being a dick" and needs to be voted off the island until everyone sees eye to eye.

Perfect summary.

[deaddmwalking]

It took a while to get caught up on the discussion thus far.

To Zak S's argument that rules are like 'training wheels', I would like to disagree and help to refine the analogy. You've already agreed that certain rules are necessary - you don't want 'no rules'. For a proper functioning bike, there are certain common elements that are required. Tires, gears, steering, and a seat.

I can ride a bike without a seat, but you can bet that it is something I'm going to add on immediately. There are things that I can't ride a bike without. I need tires.

Now, I will fully admit that there are people who are more skilled riders than I am. Some of them can even ride a unicycle better than I can ride a bike. On a unicycle they can do tricks, steer - anything I can do on a bike. The fact that there are more skilled riders that can achieve a 'bike' experience on a unicycle does not mean I would be disappointed to buy a bicycle and find it came with only one tire.

While it could function 'for some people' - it would not function 'for me' - at least not without far more effort than I am willing to put in.

Other accessories - like a basket or training wheels - are designed to be ignored or removed - but removing them does not alter the underlying functioning of the bike.

When you say 'superfluous rules get in your way' - I take that to mean you don't actually need a bike. You're fine with a unicycle. I'm fine with that. And if someone wants to produce a bicycle for me and a unicycle for you, I'm fine with that as well.

But if that person came to these forums and asked about what I was looking for in a bike, I would tell them my honest opinion. Hopefully, they'll be able to figure out whether bicycles or unicycles are more desired and/or more fun to produce. There's no reason they can't maintain their integrity and achieve financial success.

And of course - if something 'is bad', that implies 'bad for me'. And that's sufficient. If I tell a designer 'this is a bad rule', I'll usually explain why it is bad for me, but I'm under no obligation to explain why it is bad to some audiences but not others. If my perspective is representative, the designer may want to include my observations. If my criticisms are not representative, they may want to ignore me. It is the obligation of the person receiving criticism to determine if the one offering the criticism can be relied upon. We would expect different criticisms from different corners depending on their preferences. Clearly identifying our underlying preferences each time we provide a comment would be unduly cumbersome and fraught with imprecision.

Presumably, someone asking for discussion on their rule on a public formum is interested in a wide variety of opinions. 'This is bad and here's why' is at least as useful as 'this doesn't work for me and this is why'.

[zugschef]

The point is that a unicycle is objectively more dangerous in everyday traffic than a bicycle. Even though someone likes unicycles more than bicycles it's still possible to make founded arguments to why a bicycle is a better means of transportation than a unicycle.

[deaddmwalking]

The point is that a unicycle is objectively more dangerous in everyday traffic than a bicycle. Even though someone likes unicycles more than bicycles it's still possible to make founded arguments why a bicycle is a better means of transportation than a unicycle.

I absolutely agree. There are some few individuals who are so capable on a unicycle that for them the differences in safety are so minute as to be without consideration - but for most people, bicycles are easier.

Some people won't mind the extra work required to be able to handle them equally well, but that's an unfair burden to lay on someone.

Though a rules-lite system may very well have rules for EVERYTHING. It may be a very simple rule (roll d6 and on a 5 or 6, something good happens). Analyzing the differences between a game that excludes necessary systems and a game that abstracts them to a simple resolution might be necessary for this discussion. Since Zak S has been very vague on what he actually plays, I'm not certain what he means by 'rules light' - other than that there are, at least, some rules.

[Mistborn]

But we do need a counter argument. Because the fallacies of the ruleslite crowd are often repeated and sound similar enough to things that make sense that it is often hard to wrap one's mind around where exactly they've gone completely off the rails.

So going back to the OP how do we defeat the "rulings not rules" canard that's so beloved by the OSR crowd. Because those sort of arguments are the core of that cancerous movement, and that movement has enough pull that Mearls made RPGPundit a "consultant" for Next.

What are we actually arguing here?

I think one of the problems to "win" an argument against people who don't understand the Oberoni Fallacy, is that they are shifty. I mean the Oberoni Fallacy itself points at that. They contradict themselves. And I quite honestly don't believe that the argument about "fighter vs. wizard" is "won" either because of the same reason: These people have no problem with lying to themselves.

While we'll never make the Pundit or Benoists of the world admit that they are wrong we can still discredit them. No matter how sound are arguments are those people are never going to change their positions but we can pursue these discussions to the point that they stop arguing and start throwing tantrums. Once that happens we've essentially won, but getting there requires a strong set of counter arguments to their talking points

[Cyberzombie]

Wow you are a genuinely terrible human being.

So ignoring the hideous cockmongler for the time being, this thread should tell us one thing. The Den needs a better set of arguments to deal with people like Zak, because this isn't an argument our side has won conclusively the way we have with Fighters vs Wizards. theRPGsite is a real place, the OSR movement is a stronger enemy of progress now than it was 5 years ago, and games like Bear World still get extremely favorable press. If our goal is to make TTRPGs better than we're doing it poorly.

Our arguments against MTP ring hollow, because peoples assumptions/experiences about MTP is not that they're being dicked over arbitrarily. People's assumption is that MTP judgments will be in their favor to a ridiculous degree. In order to prevail in this debate we're going need better arguments one's that actually address people preconceived notions.

The thing is that MTP is not objectively bad the same way fighters vs wizards objectively favors the wizard. Not every MTP game involves a power tripping DM looking to screw over his PCs. Most of them involve a DM trying to have fun with his friends.

At the end of the day, fun is all that matters. And plenty of people have fun with MTP, and no amount of argument will prove to them that they didn't have fun.

[Avoraciopoctules]

Why K Is Wrong

Yeh, bad rules often turn good guys into accidental assholes.

A game can't turn someone into an asshole: either they are or they aren't. It's all their fault. They can fuck up, but asshole requires intent--and if you are tempted into being abusive--you're a dick and it's your own fault

Okay, I think I'm going to seriously engage this point. Legally, entrapment is a thing. And mood/situational factors can dramatically shift how people act/think. Good people can in fact make bad decisions. People reading this thread, your choice of game/houserules can in fact determine how much people act unpleasantly to each other.

Even if some people in Livefree are acting like jerks, none of them are inherently bad people, and none of them bear sole responsibility for the the situation. To an extent, that's simply to be expected when you play Dominions. Though it is true that even in Dominions, people can more efficiently enjoy the game if they seek out others with compatible play styles.

[Fuchs]

If a monster attacks a player character and the player doesn't think it should have, that's the player being a dick if Fuchs happens to sympathize with the MC, and it's the MC being a dick if Fuchs happens to sympathize with the player. And even though such a contention easily could have been avoided by having some sort of system in place that provided for less ambiguity in monster targeting, Fuchs is confident that you don't need any because he can always just make snap judgements about who is "being a dick" and needs to be voted off the island until everyone sees eye to eye.

Perfect summary.

If you cannot handle a monster attacking your character without suspecting the GM to have it out for you, then obviously there's some trust issues there that's far beyond the help a rule can give. No amount of rules will be able to solve that issue. If you cannot trust your GM to pick a target for his monsters without being an asshole to someone, then you need to pick a new GM or group. But that's between you and the GM/Group, not a fault of missing rules. You probably think he is watering down your soda too, or picking snack food you hate.

A minimum amount of trust needs to be there to play a game like D&D together. The examples brought up ehre often do not have that amount of trust.

[NineInchNall]

The rules-light types are particularly strange when talking about the fairness of MTP vs. explicit rules.

A normal intuition (shared by most people everywhere) is that when deciding between two options, a coin flip is fair. This intuition is extended to the analogous rule, a rule which provides a fair distribution of outcomes. A rule that is fair is one that sets limitations or requirements that are unbiased - in all senses of that word. That is, it is not influenced by any personal interest, and its probability distribution is not unbalanced to favor/hinder one over another. A fair rule is like a fair coin.

In a multiplayer game of Magic, for instance, sometimes only one player has any creatures out - big ones, at that - and must decide whom to attack. It is seen as fair for him to roll a die to determine his target. On the other hand, simply choosing to attack one or another would lead to later justifications for retaliation. (As in, "You chose to swing at me!")

We can see the same sort of psychology in RPGs. When something negative happens to a PC, the DM can cite a rule (e.g., drowning or rough terrain rules), with the assumption that the rule is as fair as the coin. It is seen as inherently more fair than the DM's simply choosing the outcome.

What I find odd is that the rules-light types apparently think adding a die roll changes things. The example that keeps popping up is *World, which gives a die roll after which the GM just chooses the outcome. This is explicitly "the DM decides what happens", and yet is defended as fair. Apparently, their intuitions regarding the fairness of RNGs and rules defuse their intuitions regarding the fairness of simply having the outcome be a choice. The insidious example is D&DNext's "set DCs after seeing the die roll" nonsense, which is functionally identical to "the DM chooses the outcome." It boggles the mind how that is seen as fair.

They also don't seem to recognize that their house-rules or rulings can bias the metaphorical coin flip. (Like Rogues can sneak attack once per round, attacking from horseback gives +2 to attack, Wizards cast spontaneously, caltrops don't affect dwarves, etc. How many stories have we heard where a house rule was in effect that greatly benefitted one sort of character, and the players didn't seem to notice it? I think an example of this in practice is the old tiger-shaping amulet for the Monk story.) Somehow again, the intuitions regarding fair coins are defused.

Then there's the strangest case, where MTP replaces rules entirely for a certain category of actions. This can be nothing but "DM chooses outcome."

Are the rules-lighters just a special breed of human that doesn't share the normal intuitions? Is there a cognitive short circuit such that they merely fail to realize what's going on? Is it a(nother) counterexample to epistemic closure under known entailment?

[shadzar]

But limits such as "no artifacts for starting chracters" or limits to wealth according to level are not needed

oh for fuchs sake! you dont give starting characters artifacts for a reason. it has nothing to do with the player expectations or abilities, it is simply because the power and ability to use them isnt there.

you want every player character to run around with the One Ring and be able to sue its full power. that shits isnt going ot happen in 99.999% of the games in the world. deal with it and stop being a narrow-minded munchkin who only wants to play Elan the Bard as a rapier wielding annoying fop!

[K]

Why K Is Wrong

Yeh, bad rules often turn good guys into accidental assholes.

A game can't turn someone into an asshole: either they are or they aren't. It's all their fault. They can fuck up, but asshole requires intent--and if you are tempted into being abusive--you're a dick and it's your own fault

Okay, I think I'm going to seriously engage this point. Legally, entrapment is a thing. And mood/situational factors can dramatically shift how people act/think. Good people can in fact make bad decisions. People reading this thread, your choice of game/houserules can in fact determine how much people act unpleasantly to each other.

Even if some people in Livefree are acting like jerks, none of them are inherently bad people, and none of them bear sole responsibility for the the situation. To an extent, that's simply to be expected when you play Dominions. Though it is true that even in Dominions, people can more efficiently enjoy the game if they seek out others with compatible play styles.

Zak is deluded if he thinks that people can't accidentally be dicks. I mean, I've literally watched him be a dick to his players in his games for purely rules-related reasons, and I never thought he was trying to be a dick.

Some rules and games are just more dickish than others. It's one of the many reasons that bad rules need to be labeled as such so that we know to change them.

I've actually learned valuable game design lessons from watching Zak be a dick and make his players sad. It's a shame that he hasn't.

[K]

Falling into the "we are all friends here and we don't need good rules" is just another amusing variant of the Oberoni Fallacy.

No, "we are all friends here and we need good rules but we have absolutely zero chance that the rules provided to use by a publishing company will be good for us or worth the effort of looking them up"

Like: almost nothing anybody could tell me about how to adjudicate jumping off a horse at a canter vs a gallop could possibly be worth the amount of time it'd take to look it up or memorize it.

Do you grasp the difference?

Like it seems like it would take willful, intentional blindness to not see the difference between those two ideas.

I think that we've gotten our answer to why people fetishize rules-light games: they are too arrogant or lazy to learn a rules-heavy game.

It's a little sad because I really wanted the answer to be "erections."

[Fuchs]

Some rules and games are just more dickish than others. It's one of the many reasons that bad rules need to be labeled as such so that we know to change them.

Either the GM cannot be a dick and cannot decide anything of relevance at all (Hint: That's not a fun game for him, that's being a dice roller), or the GM can make decisions that affect the game, and therefore can be a dick if he wants to.

[shadzar]

did your limited ability to think for yourself lead you to this wrong conclussion, or were you taught to memorize this like every thing else you spew forth in an unthinking manor?

some people play games to UNWIND, and that is where rules-light games can come into play. shit like 3.x for those uninterested in 90% of the shit in it, is not going to endear them to it or games like it.

the game is there for playing, not mastering the rules.

again, play the game, not the rules.

if you don't know the purpose of a game, buy a dictionary, get an English tutor, and get a kindergarten teacher to help you understand what "playing" is.

stop worshipping some retard in Renton, Wa, just because you fetishize becoming the next Mike Mearls.

[Username17]

If a monster attacks a player character and the player doesn't think it should have, that's the player being a dick if Fuchs happens to sympathize with the MC, and it's the MC being a dick if Fuchs happens to sympathize with the player. And even though such a contention easily could have been avoided by having some sort of system in place that provided for less ambiguity in monster targeting, Fuchs is confident that you don't need any because he can always just make snap judgements about who is "being a dick" and needs to be voted off the island until everyone sees eye to eye.

Perfect summary.

If you cannot handle a monster attacking your character without suspecting the GM to have it out for you, then obviously there's some trust issues there that's far beyond the help a rule can give. No amount of rules will be able to solve that issue. If you cannot trust your GM to pick a target for his monsters without being an asshole to someone, then you need to pick a new GM or group. But that's between you and the GM/Group, not a fault of missing rules. You probably think he is watering down your soda too, or picking snack food you hate.

A minimum amount of trust needs to be there to play a game like D&D together. The examples brought up ehre often do not have that amount of trust.

I'm going to quote Fuchs' post in its entirety. Not because it makes any sense, but for posterity in case he deletes it later. Could he possibly have said anything that more thoroughly proved my point?

Keep in mind that were he to arbitrarily be taking the side of the player in that dispute, he would have said something like this:

If you cannot handle a player questioning your decisions without suspecting the player to have it out for you, then obviously there's some trust issues there that's far beyond the help a rule can give. No amount of rules will be able to solve that issue. If you cannot respond to player objections and requests without being an asshole to someone, then you need to pick new players or a new group. But that's between you and the Group, not a fault of missing rules. You probably think he is watering down your soda too, or picking snack food you hate.

A minimum amount of trust needs to be there to play a game like D&D together. The examples brought up ehre often do not have that amount of trust.

Because the fact is that any dispute has at least two sides. And Fuchs' claim that he can always instantaneously resolve all disputes by telling people to not be assholes is laughable on the face of it. Consensus is bullshit. People don't always agree. And usually, when two people don't agree there is at least some reason on both sides. Arguments where one person or the other is clearly wrong are rare. Arguments where one side is only arguing because they are "being an asshole" are rarer still.

Fuchs' reduction of all human disagreement to black and white "asshole vs. trust" is totally immature. And by "immature" I actually mean that it is literally medically classified as an "immature defense mechanism" called Splitting.

-Username17

[NineInchNall]

I think that we've gotten our answer to why people fetishize rules-light games: they are too arrogant or lazy to learn a rules-heavy game.

It's a little sad because I really wanted the answer to be "erections."

Regarding the bolded: As in they are special, unique snowflakes for whom rules can only be written by people who read their minds?