Why do people fetishize Magic Tea Party

[Zak S]

But that's just a god damn "clarification" that yes, you ARE doing it in exactly that stupid way that does that really stupid thing to the game.

Since it remains utterly unchanged it STILL makes players declare their characters are petulant sociopaths who will never save the kingdom again if they are refused anything at all because that's the only way you get kingdom saving bonuses on anything at all.

Sounds pretty right-on. If the PCs threaten to never save the kingdom again, there's a charisma roll (modified) to see if the King believes that.

If he does, whether he grants their request or not, the PCs get a minus to future checks involving the king's trust (though not his fear) because of their mercenary behavior.

It all works.

[Username17]

You perform a heroic act that benefits the king. You get a bonus with the king.

Unless the king believes he can refuse you without cutting off his access to future heroic acts from you that benefit him.

Simple.

Seriously? You're going for "traveling heroes can't expect any gratitude because they will be leaving town shortly and not coming back?" You don't see a problem with that? Really?

-Username17

[Zak S]

So far as I can tell, Zak's actual claim is that he can make up a rule that is good enough to keep the game moving. He has also implicitly claimed that rules he makes up on the spot are likely to be better than that found in any given WotC or Paizo product, a claim for which any given book produced by either of them is compelling evidence in favor of.

Of course, the problem with talking about the amazing abilities of one particular GM is that, even if it's true, it's pointless in a discussion of game design. It literally adds nothing to say "you should fix problems by being so awesome that that problems don't exist in the first place".

Well if you're asking me about conclusions for game design, I'd say:

1. There should be games and game products and game discussions that cater to the needs of these GMs, since they exist. (For example: games with rules-lite spell descriptions rather than rules-filling-the-page descriptions.)

2. These do not have to be the majority of products

3. See 2

4. See 2 again--are you sure you saw it?

5. Really? Are you totally sure? Because it seems like you didn't see it.

6. I mean it, see 2.

7. Don't pretend these game products are inferior or poorly designed, simply because they're designed for what might be a minority.

[Zak S]

You perform a heroic act that benefits the king. You get a bonus with the king.

Unless the king believes he can refuse you without cutting off his access to future heroic acts from you that benefit him.

Simple.

Seriously? You're going for "traveling heroes can't expect any gratitude because they will be leaving town shortly and not coming back?" You don't see a problem with that? Really?

-Username17

Good question!

If the king's rewards are public, then the king could easily perceive that lack of public largesse toward these heroes could limit access to heroism from any other heroes in the future.

If the king's rewards are private, then there is no modifier. Kings, by definition, default to being assholes. If, despite the lack of positive modifier, the king grants a request, then you could say that's due to the king being unusually generous.

Either way, there's no negative knock-on effect. If the players start refusing to perform good deeds just because they won't get rewards they are actually being mercenary and so it isn't a contradiction that people would respond as if they are. If the players hold good deeds hostage to rewards, ditto.

If truly selfless deeds go unrewarded, the truly selfless don't care and will do more selfless deeds anyway.

[hogarth]

Well if you're asking me about conclusions for game design, I'd say:

1. There should be games and game products and game discussions that cater to the needs of these GMs, since they exist. (For example: games with rules-lite spell descriptions rather than rules-filling-the-page descriptions.)

2. These do not have to be the majority of product.

But you can apply that logic to every single defective product, ever.

"There should be cars that don't have the gas tank explode when they're rear-ended. But those don't have to be the majority of cars. For some people, the Ford Pinto meets the needs of their particular family, so you can't say it's a bad car."

[Zak S]

Well if you're asking me about conclusions for game design, I'd say:

1. There should be games and game products and game discussions that cater to the needs of these GMs, since they exist. (For example: games with rules-lite spell descriptions rather than rules-filling-the-page descriptions.)

2. These do not have to be the majority of product.

But you can apply that logic to every single defective product, ever.

"There should be cars that don't have the gas tank explode when they're rear-ended. But those don't have to be the majority of cars. For some people, the Ford Pinto meets the needs of their particular family, so you can't say it's a bad car."

Mistaken analogy:

All Pintos have a possibility of exploding.

If we accept the premise you just laid out (that is, that GMs for whom 'explosions' are not a possibility exist

the amazing abilities of one particular GM is that, even if it's true

then the analogy falls apart.

If you want to go back and revise that premise to go "Ok, I don't actually believe that GMs who don't have these problems exist" then you'd have a point. (The premise would be unproved and wrong, but the analogy would make sense.)

The fact is: it doesn't require fantastic abilities to avoid arguing with your players over rules.

It's an extant aptitude in the species.

If you don't believe it: you can test it.

Get on Google + and play a game.

[shadzar]

So far as I can tell, Zak's actual claim is that he can make up a rule that is good enough to keep the game moving. He has also implicitly claimed that rules he makes up on the spot are likely to be better than that found in any given WotC or Paizo product, a claim for which any given book produced by either of them is compelling evidence in favor of.

Of course, the problem with talking about the amazing abilities of one particular GM is that, even if it's true, it's pointless in a discussion of game design. It literally adds nothing to say "you should fix problems by being so awesome that that problems don't exist in the first place".

in game design, how do you fix problems for everyone, when some people don't have problems with it? make 4th edition D&D?

try making the game ONETRUEWAY and force everyone to play that?

this is the problem with "rules not rulings" people, is that they fail to see that not everyone agrees with them, their playstyle, their wants out of the game, etc.

this is why there are more games than just D&D, because wants of different people require different methods.

so don't worship some game designer or company that makes the game. don't try to name drop or brand shop. buy and use a quality product. no RPG has been able to be played RAW in the history of RPGs.

accept that you can please some of the people all of the time (brand shopper/designer worshipers), all of the people some of the time (edition preference), but you cannot please all of the people all of the time (4th edition and DDN).

[Zak S]

this is the problem with "rules not rulings" people, is that they fail to see that not everyone agrees with them, their playstyle, their wants out of the game, etc.
.

See 2. above.

AGAIN.

[shadzar]

i wasnt even on this page to see 2, let alone 1, what the hell are you talking about?

2 says that some books can be made for corner cases, and not be part of the default of the game.

read the last part in my post you just quoted from and you will see the same effect in its some people all the time, etc....

it still remains that "rules not rulings" people want there to be RAW, and only RAW, where no deviation is allowed. DMs are not allowed to think for themselves, only be cogs in the RPG machine with no common sense, but as blind as the depictions of "justice".

these people were commonly known as even when AD&D first came out to be "rules lawyers" or as Gary put it "BARRACKS ROOM LAWYERS".

AFTERWORD

IT IS THE SPIRIT OF THE GAME, NOT THE LETTER OF THE RULES, WHICH IS IMPORTANT. NEVER HOLD TO THE LETTER WRITTEN, NOR ALLOW SOME BARRACKS ROOM LAWYER TO FORCE QUOTATIONS FROM THE RULE BOOK UPON YOU, IF IT GOES AGAINST THE OBVIOUS INTENT OF THE GAME. AS YOU HEW THE LINE WITH RESPECT TO CONFORMITY TO MAJOR SYSTEMS AND UNIFORMITY OF PLAY IN GENERAL, ALSO BE CERTAIN THE GAME IS MASTERED BY YOU AND NOT BY YOUR PLAYERS. WITHIN THE BROAD PARAMETERS GIVEN IN THE ADVANCED DUNGEONS 8 DRAGONS VOLUMES, YOU ARE CREATOR AND FINAL ARBITER. BY ORDERING THINGS AS THEY SHOULD BE, THE GAME AS A WHOLE FIRST, YOUR CAMPAIGN NEXT, AND YOUR PARTICIPANTS THEREAFTER, YOU WILL BE PLAYING ADVANCED DUNGEONS 8 DRAGONS AS IT WAS MEANT TO BE. MAY YOU FIND AS MUCH PLEASURE IN SO DOING AS THE REST OF US DO!

"Zeb" repeated it in 2nd as well

Foreword to the 2nd Edition

At conventions, in letters, and over the phone I'm often asked for the instant answer to a fine point of the game rules. More often than not, I come back with a question--what do you feel is right? And the people asking the questions discover that not only can they create an answer, but that their answer is as good as anyone else's. The rules are only guidelines.
At the beginning of the first Dungeon Master Guide, Gary Gygax stressed that each of us, working from a common base, would make the AD&D game grow in a variety of different directions. That is more true today than ever. Don't be afraid of experimentation, but do be careful. As a Dungeon Master, you have great power, and "with great power comes great responsibility." Use it wisely.

Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

WotC fucked it all up by not having enough in 3.x because the crybaby rules lawyers that felt they were buttraped by DMs, because they played with bad DMs rather than sticking to their guns.

Rule 0: No game is better than a bad game.
Rule 1: The DM is always right.
Rule 2: When the DM is wrong, gosub Rule 0.

[Fuchs]

I really wonder how many here actually have a stable group to play with.

[Zak S]

i
it still remains that "rules not rulings" people want there to be RAW, and only RAW, where no deviation is allowed..

I don't understand what you're talking about. Maybe there's a typo.

[TheFlatline]

You perform a heroic act that benefits the king. You get a bonus with the king.

Unless the king believes he can refuse you without cutting off his access to future heroic acts from you that benefit him undermining his authority to rule.

Simple.

FTFY

Because you're forgetting that the heroes that stopped the orcs from destroying the village are heroes of the peasants, who have to keep making the bread that feeds the king. Shafting the heroes could result in a peasant revolt, or they could stop paying taxes, or they could totally tell the heroes "you know, if you knock this fucker off we'll gladly follow you, you saved us from the orcs". Or perhaps another band of wandering murder hobos hears that the king isn't so good as thought and decide to murderate him, take all his gold, and leave.

Reinforcing the idea that social currency is complicated. The idea of making it a single pivot-point decision scale is fucking stupid. Any accomplished leader or politician is adept in weighing the eleventy billion constantly shifting scales balancing against each other and finding the best balance.

I mean look at Elizabeth I. She cock-teased her way through her entire reign to keep England independent. Using your system she would have married probably Phillip II and been done with it.

"Deception is the point! Any fool can calculate strength. That one has been doing it since we arrived. Now he has to calculate what he can't see."
-Herger the Joyus

[shadzar]

i
it still remains that "rules not rulings" people want there to be RAW, and only RAW, where no deviation is allowed..

I don't understand what you're talking about. Maybe there's a typo.

the people for rules, and against rulings, only want rules from the publisher, aka Rules As Written (RAW).

they do NOT want a DM to make a single ruling, but to follow the rules as black and white, what they say goes, and only that is allowed in the game.

they are the rules lawyers. they are TGD.

[Chamomile]

Shadzar is another of those with whom a reasonable conversation cannot be had. In fact, he is further out than PhoneLobster or anyone else, in that he is most often completely incoherent. Really, this forum has a policy of not banning anyone unless they make site maintenance unnecessarily difficult. You really should trust me when I say certain people aren't worth talking to.

[Zak S]

You perform a heroic act that benefits the king. You get a bonus with the king.

Unless the king believes he can refuse you without cutting off his access to future heroic acts from you that benefit him undermining his authority to rule.

Simple.

FTFY

Because you're forgetting that the heroes that stopped the orcs from destroying the village are heroes of the peasants, who have to keep making the bread that feeds the king. Shafting the heroes could result in a peasant revolt, or they could stop paying taxes, or they could totally tell the heroes "you know, if you knock this fucker off we'll gladly follow you, you saved us from the orcs". Or perhaps another band of wandering murder hobos hears that the king isn't so good as thought and decide to murderate him, take all his gold, and leave.

Reinforcing the idea that social currency is complicated. The idea of making it a single pivot-point decision scale is fucking stupid. Any accomplished leader or politician is adept in weighing the eleventy billion constantly shifting scales balancing against each other and finding the best balance.

I mean look at Elizabeth I. She cock-teased her way through her entire reign to keep England independent. Using your system she would have married probably Phillip II and been done with it.

"Deception is the point! Any fool can calculate strength. That one has been doing it since we arrived. Now he has to calculate what he can't see."
-Herger the Joyus

What you call "undermining his authority to rule" I'd call "cutting himself off from access to further goodwill" (goodwill--of the peasantry and others watching--being the currency bought with public reward and not bought with private reward).

You're just describing another reason the system I thought up makes sense.

Elizabeth would've done the same thing she actually did: assuming she's the PC, she gives powerful people attention, they want more of her attention (because it's a prerequisite for everything else she's got) , they reward her. It all works.

[Zak S]

Shadzar is another of those with whom a reasonable conversation cannot be had. In fact, he is further out than PhoneLobster or anyone else, in that he is most often completely incoherent. Really, this forum has a policy of not banning anyone unless they make site maintenance unnecessarily difficult. You really should trust me when I say certain people aren't worth talking to.

I do trust you. But I wouldn't be here unless I was curious about the various methods of being a jerk people have thought up.

I am wondering how far people can go on nothing but:

A) Say your long running campaign doesn't work
B) When it's proven that it does, say it isn't the majority experience
C) When people ask why that should matter, go back to A.

Like...how long can they keep that up ?

[zugschef]

You seem to have missed a point.
[...]
1. End up memorizing rules you don't use.

I didn't miss anything. You've just made the same ridiculous argument again: Of course you won't use a rule, if you don't remember it and don't look it up. That is a fuckin' trivial statement.

And quite honestly, a lot of spells are so complicated that even if you know them, you have to look them up again and again. But your position is literally that you fuck the rules in these cases and just go by your stomach because it's faster and thus, better than knowing the rule by heart or looking it up.

At this point you're not playing the same game anymore. How fucked is that?

I didn't say all rules were not worth looking up.

Spells are a great example of rules that usually are worth looking up--and it's important to keep spells the same because players choose them BEFORE they use them based on the assumption they'll work the way the book said.

But, for example, the rules for flammables--that's a rule that, no matter what information I find once i look it up, it's never been worth the time it took to look it up.

So you decide which rules are worth remembering and looking up and which rules are not.

If you don't understand how that's fucked, then any further conversation with you is totally pointless.

[Zak S]

I didn't miss anything. You've just made the same ridiculous argument again: Of course you won't use a rule, if you don't remember it and don't look it up. That is a fuckin' trivial statement.

And quite honestly, a lot of spells are so complicated that even if you know them, you have to look them up again and again. But your position is literally that you fuck the rules in these cases and just go by your stomach because it's faster and thus, better than knowing the rule by heart or looking it up.

At this point you're not playing the same game anymore. How fucked is that?

I didn't say all rules were not worth looking up.

Spells are a great example of rules that usually are worth looking up--and it's important to keep spells the same because players choose them BEFORE they use them based on the assumption they'll work the way the book said.

But, for example, the rules for flammables--that's a rule that, no matter what information I find once i look it up, it's never been worth the time it took to look it up.

So you decide which rules are worth remembering and looking up and which rules are not.

Of course. Though if my players disagree, we can talk about it.

And before you go "well your players aren't GMs, they don't know they're being screwed" --I also play a handful of games each week with people online where everybody in the game's an experienced GM and they all know different systems backwards and forward. And guess what? We still don't fight over the rules.

If you don't understand how that's fucked, then any further conversation with you is totally pointless.

Ok, dude.

I guess your thesis is "A game designer who doesn't know anything about your group's preferences or playstyle or gameworld is allowed to tell you what rules to use for flammability but if you do it yourself THAT'S FUCKED."

Which is amazingly crazy and--unless you're subscribing to Lobster's totally irrational "YOU HAVE OR WILL HAVE FIGHTS OVER RULES EVEN IF YOU DON'T ACTUALLY AND I HAVE NO PROOF OF IT!" thesis--I don't know what dire consequences you predict for continuing to play this way.

So yeah...What are the Dire Consequences you see for me and Why Don't They Ever Seem To Come To Pass?

And, if you want to even pretend to be scientific--you have to establish a fact that you could learn/discover that would disprove your theory.

So: what would constitute proof, for you, that no, actually, I am getting a functional game out of rolling this way? If the answer is "nothing" that's not reason, that's just going on faith.

[Username17]

Shadzar is another of those with whom a reasonable conversation cannot be had. In fact, he is further out than PhoneLobster or anyone else, in that he is most often completely incoherent. Really, this forum has a policy of not banning anyone unless they make site maintenance unnecessarily difficult. You really should trust me when I say certain people aren't worth talking to.

I do trust you. But I wouldn't be here unless I was curious about the various methods of being a jerk people have thought up.

I am wondering how far people can go on nothing but:

A) Say your long running campaign doesn't work
B) When it's proven that it does, say it isn't the majority experience
C) When people ask why that should matter, go back to A.

Like...how long can they keep that up ?

See, I'm wondering why you keep floating this particular straw man. I know the answer to how long is "forever" because it's a straw man that defenders of shitty rules have been using since Crog first defended the "No Woman Hunt" rule.

What you have here is a classic "denial in depth." First of all, you have illicitly replaced the assertion that "things could work better" with the claim that things "don't work now." That's not a valid replacement. Secondly, you've lowered the expectations of things "working" so low that I don't know what could possibly happen to convince you that things weren't working. Would we all have to be on fire?

Basically, your core argument is an appeal to tradition fallacy. It goes like this:

• I have done it this way.
• We aren't dead yet.
• That's good enough.

But you know what? That's bullshit. It's really obviously bullshit. The fact that we aren't dead yet is a very weak argument for continuing any practices under any circumstances. And it's especially weak as an argument for the practices in an inconsequential procedure such as an evening's game. There are RPGs so bad that they might actually result in real people dying (RaHoWa, WoD: Gypsies), but they are very rare.

You failed pretty spectacularly to write even a simple description of a functional social currency system. There's no shame in that, social currency systems are hard to make and most people don't get very far. Your brief descriptions led me to believe that neither Superman nor the Man With No Name get social bonuses with the people they save, and that you can trade twelve apples for one castle. That's really, really bad. Dropping expectations so low that that counts as "working" is of course possible. But it's not convincing. It's actually terrible.

And waving around your lowered expectations as if it were some sort of trump card is very silly. The Applejacks argument is not a good argument.

-Username17

[gamerGoyf]

guys while I have super respect for what you doing right now. It would be nice to see a little less arguing with the troll and a little more analysis of why the "rulings not rules" guys are so hard to argue with.

The line of argument I've been using is that when the rules underlying their actions are in flux players can't make meaningful decisions. It's like you're doing the Monty Hall problem only Monty decides where the goats are after you pick a door. Obviously you're decision to pick a door wasn't meaningful because it has no impact on whether or not you get a goat. If how your actions are handled is undecided until your turn comes up you don't really have any agency as a player.

[Fuchs]

But as was stated before, even with "rulings" you still have Player agency. You tell the player what the DC is before he rolls, and he can change the action if the odds not to his liking.

Player usually asks what the DC is, you either look the rule up or make a ruling, and tell him, then he decides his action. Claiming that Player agency is removed only because you don't use every rule in the book is false.

[Zak S]

[
And waving around your lowered expectations as if it were some sort of trump card is very silly. The Applejacks argument is not a good argument.

-Username17

I already addressed the Applejacks argument Frank. I already demonstrated it was inaccurate.

Did you not read that response?

Search your forum, find it and then write a response which takes into account what I already said about the Applejacks argument (Page 8).

And Superman would get a bonus for reactions from those he saved because they want to continue to keep the possibility of being saved by him open in the future.


So, address those things, Frank.

[Zak S]

Obviously you're decision to pick a door wasn't meaningful because it has no impact on whether or not you get a goat. If how your actions are handled is undecided until your turn comes up you don't really have any agency as a player.

That's not how rulings-not-rules works.


This is on PAGE ONE of the thread: you provide the means of adjudication before the player makes their final decision.

So why is rulings-not-rules so hard to argue with?

Because you don't know how it works and filled in the gaps with shit you invented.

Play a game.

Come play a game, then you can find out how it works.

[Fuchs]

See, I'm wondering why you keep floating this particular straw man. I know the answer to how long is "forever" because it's a straw man that defenders of shitty rules have been using since Crog first defended the "No Woman Hunt" rule.

How long do your campaigns usually run? Do you have stable group? How often do you play?

Or are you arguing about how to improve a weekly campaign that has been running for over 10 years while you never actually managed something Close?

[Fuchs]

So why is rulings-not-rulesso hard to argue with?

You don't know how it works and filled in the gaps with shit you invented.

Well, rulings not rules isn't actually that different from house rules.

House rules: I don't like that rule, I'll replace it with this rule.

Rulings: I don't care about the original rule, I'll replace it with this rule.

The issue some here have is that they cannot stomach the GM making a ruling. If you'd said "and I make up a rule, all players can veto on it" you'd probably be fine - even if that's exactly what happens in functional groups: the GM won't make a ruling if it'd ruin the game for a player, a player won't make an issue of a ruling unless it's really important for his enjoyment of the game.