Why do people fetishize Magic Tea Party

[shadzar]

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

i find it funny how the gutter-trash of this forum tried to get me over and over to run a game of 2nd, and even started a thread on it here, but someone right there offering to let them in a game, they have ignored for 15 times in this one thread.

it is funny, because they have no case, and will be instantly proven wrong if they were to join your game, and no longer be able to hold there heads up high as rules-not-rulings RAW riles-lawyers.

everyone that disagrees has been offered the game, now i want to see someone grow a pair of balls and take him up on it and prove him wrong via the game, or stop sucking each others cocks and fighting over who gets to be the soggy biscuit.

sadly NOBODY on this forum or any current gamer evr understood D&D to begin with after WotC tried to remake it in MTG's image. CCGers trying to play an RPG the same way... i am laughing so hard. glad i am always drunk when i visit this forum, cause it is always better than a Jackass movie.

[Username17]

[
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?

Yes, I read your response. Your response was shitty. Here it is again:

Some improvements are universal (fix typos) but most of them move it in a direction--toward one audience and away from another. Be aware that you are doing that, and describe it. Don't pretend a solution is a panacea for all audiences, don't pretend a feature for some audiences is a universal bug.

That's it. That's the Applejacks argument. That's just restating it. That's just you doubling down on the idea that things being "good enough" to an entirely subjective standard means that changes are bad, or at least "not good." It's gaming relativism to the point where there's no point having any conversation about anything.

If you claim that something being liked by somebody somewhere means that you can't call a change to it an "improvement," you're simply being willfully obtuse. That's radical relativism, and it's an incoherent ethical stance and a pointless design stance.

I'm sure someone somewhere who isn't Jared likes the game "Throw poop at Jared" but that's still a shitty game. And pointing to the guy who isn't Jared who likes it and then whining that it's all opinion and perspective doesn't make that game not be shitty.

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.

No. Superman will save you whether you give him free soup or not. He's Superman, and he's an altruist. Not a reciprocal altruist or homo economicus, but a genuine altruist. That's really the whole point. If your system hinges on a rational assessment of whether it would incentivize future behavior, your system prevents people from being grateful to altruists. Which is very stupid. And not something you can easily patch, because game theory does suggest that you should always defect against Superman or Lion Jesus because they are consistent altruists and you aren't penalized by them for doing that. But of course, people don't always defect against Superman or Lion Jesus, because gratitude is a real thing that your social system is supposed to be emulating and demonstrably failing to do.

-Username17

[zugschef]

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.

Aha... So you mention every fuckin' rule you're not gonna use (because too lazy remembering or looking up) to your players beforehand? Of course not, because you don't even know which rule you might not be bothered to look up at any given time. It might even be the case that you look it up one time and just go with your feelingz! next time (because it was too bothersome when you were looking stuff up last time). What you are actually propagating is on the fly houseruling.

Fuchs and you obviously have trouble determining what is fair and what is not, all the while you are accusing others of being dickish.

[edit]
Your entire argument to defend this position is really, "It works at my table!", which is obviously not an objective argument at all.

[DragonChild]

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?

I have never run a 10-year long game. The longest I've ever run a single campaign was for a year and a half, before ending it - with an actual ending, as the story had run its course.

I know a DM who's run a single campaign for over 10 years though. He was a creepy misogynist, routinely had female characters sexually assaulted and raped, constantly had his DMPCs get all the attention and do all the work, and never listened to any of the players.

So Fuchs, are we going to hear "raping the characters of PCs is good, even if they don't like it, because the other people at the table didn't quit with her" out of you now? I mean, he was such an experienced DM, surely he must know that's whats good...

[gamerGoyf]

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.

That only makes sense if players actions happen in a vacuum, when I do things on my turn the things I'm going to want to do are going to depend heavily on on not only my abilites but on the abilities of my enemies and allies. If the GM is handeling things by on the fly ruling that information in just not avalible to me it doesn't exist at all.

Well suppose guess I can play twenty questions with the GM every time my turn comes up but seriously what the fuck. Not only that but according to you I can't trust the stuff that already been written down because those rules may or may not be in play because he's too cool for school. Fuck that shit

[DSMatticus]

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

11 pages of bullshit aside, the problem with this (as already stated) is that every ruling introduces a new mechanic which could have been relevant to decisions your players made in the past. Perhaps even choices concerning nonrefundable resource investments (class selection, ability scores, skills, feats, so on).

Here's an interesting hypothetical (like all good hypotheticals, it includes time travel): let's say future Zak shows up at your door to give you a list of all the rulings you will ever make. Concerns about time paradoxes aside, would you show the list to your players for them to read if they wanted to? If you show them the list, they'll know exactly how easy or difficult you think all the cool things that pop into their head are, and there won't be any more problems where you and your players are on different wavelengths about doing something. That's a plus. We want everyone to be on the same page whenever possible. But if you give them the list, then they're not actually rulings anymore - they're just ordinary rules. House rules, but rules nonetheless. So if you agree with me that future Zak has done you a great service, then you agree that rules are good things.

Now, I know why you play D&D the way you do. I sympathize completely. D&D is full of needlessly complicated rules that produce really shitty results. Not only do they fail to give you the results you'd want, they require you to hop through a dozen hoops to get to those deeply unsatisfyingly results. And I think that's a big part of where the rulings-not-rules philosophy comes from - it's a backlash against bad rules, rules so bad that GM's can do noticeably better just making things up off the top of their head. But if someone handed you a lightweight and extensible rules system for handling all the crazy combat maneuvers your players come up (which I think is pretty doable), would you really say no... because rules=bad?

[Cyberzombie]

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.

The really silly thing is that no matter how codified and precise the rules, a tyrant DM is never forced to adhere to them. It makes me wonder how many of the people here have actually played under bad DMs. It seems like some imagined fear, because the kind of tyrannical power tripping DMs everyone is complaining about are not held in check by rules. They never have been.

A real tyrant DM is going to look like this (You won't be able to tell what edition of rules that example comes from, because it doesn't matter)

DM: The gnoll trapped in the web *rolls dice* escapes it and attacks Jim's character.
PC: Wait, it takes his action to escape the web, he can't do an attack afterwards.
DM: As I was saying... he attacks Jim... *rolls dice*
PC: But he CAN'T!
DM: He just did!

Your rulebook could be 10 pages or 1000 pages, but it won't matter. The idea that more rules protects from tyrant DMs is a straight up fallacy. The DM dictates the reality of the world, if he says that the gnoll broke the web and attacked, then that's what happened. Sure, it was blatantly against the rules, but the rules are just a piece of paper. They only matter so much as the DM's willingness to adhere to them. Make the rules overly complex or a pain in the ass to use, the DM gets frustrated and is more likely to ignore things.

The best defense against a tyrant DM will always be the players leaving him to DM an empty table.

[Kaelik]

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?

I have "only" DMed the same game for over 3 years, and then I moved across the country to go to lawschool. Clearly the fact that I choose to attend a lawschool on the east coast instead of Texas is evidence that I am a terrible DM. Likewise, the fact that I am young is obviously evidence that I am a terrible DM who has nothing to say about DMing.

After all, there is no way that such a completely arbitrary metric as length of time with the exact same group could in any way fail to account for some things and therefore, by your logic, deprive people of the right to speak for being younger or for joining D&D later in life, or for playing in games instead of DMing, or for moving around for reasons completely unrelated to D&D.

It makes me wonder how many of the people here have actually played under bad DMs. It seems like some imagined fear, because the kind of tyrannical power tripping DMs everyone is complaining about are not held in check by rules. They never have been.

Weird huh? It is almost like Fuchs is completely full of shit when he claims all our preferences for good rules are derived from fear of DMs. It is almost, but not quite, like that thing that we keep saying, that we want good rules that make the game more fun for games based on player agency is true.

[shadzar]

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

11 pages of bullshit aside, the problem with this (as already stated) is that every ruling introduces a new mechanic which could have been relevant to decisions your players made in the past. Perhaps even choices concerning nonrefundable resource investments (class selection, ability scores, skills, feats, so on).

Munchkin going to munchkin.

if you want to drop your character for a new one, because some ruling changes something in the game, then RPGs arent for you. it isn't a game of minxmaxxing and shit like that. it is an adventure game. you do NOT and SHOULD NOT, know what toe xpect in the multitude of possibilities the game could present and every turn should be a "you're fucked moment" if you cannot handle something because it isn't present on your character sheet.

go back and learn what the fuck an RPG is about, or just go back to your video games whence you came the lot of you!

seriously? you are going to throw a tmper tantrum cause your perfectly valid character is less powerful because of a ruling change?

is this TGD or The Fuchs Den, where everyone must get a magical rapier for treasure on demand because that is the only thing you want for your character, therefore it is OWED to him by the DM?

how many of you have ever left your prams and wiped your own ass rather than your mommy spoon feeding you, or probably still breastfeeding you?

the past happened and is gone, play the game forward not in the past. don't try to retcon the game like some Spellplague, and play forward.

i mean aren't you all the same "forward-thinking" people that claim 3.x is so much better and don't want to look back to AD&D? well do the same thing during the game when a ruling is made that changes things. look forward and think what you CAN DO now, rather than what you could have done then, cause THEN IS GONE!

juvenile delinquent den is more like it!

too early to be this drunk, unless it were thursday but what the hell!

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.

The really silly thing is that no matter how codified and precise the rules, a tyrant DM is never forced to adhere to them. It makes me wonder how many of the people here have actually played under bad DMs. It seems like some imagined fear, because the kind of tyrannical power tripping DMs everyone is complaining about are not held in check by rules. They never have been.

this is why Rule 0 exists. when you find out that no matter what rules a DM is just out to be an ass, you use it. i think many people here are so hard up for games, that they cannot use Rule 0 here, and MUST play with, or are, the ass hole DM.

when you remove the asshole DMs from being able to be the DM, then you have no more problem.

just time people have to learn to accept that RPGs and DMing isnt for everyone, and not everyone is capable of doing it.

[virgil]

Now, I know why you play D&D the way you do. I sympathize completely. D&D is full of needlessly complicated rules that produce really shitty results. Not only do they fail to give you the results you'd want, they require you to hop through a dozen hoops to get to those deeply unsatisfyingly results. And I think that's a big part of where the rulings-not-rules philosophy comes from - it's a backlash against bad rules, rules so bad that GM's can do noticeably better just making things up off the top of their head. But if someone handed you a lightweight and extensible rules system for handling all the crazy combat maneuvers your players come up (which I think is pretty doable), would you really say no... because rules=bad?

This is definitely where I am on the matter. Mistakes happen, and rulings can be worse than rules as often as the reverse. The idea that your house-rules or rulings are without real flaws is the height of arrogance. That reason nobody's argued with you or quit your game is way more likely to be because

• The fun in the game outweighs the bad of your ruling, be it the social interaction or the game itself
• They're insufficiently introspective to realize they're having less fun
• They're too lazy/ignorant (of the rules) to understand why the ruling is bad, or even that it is
• They're socially pressured (even subconsciously) to not rock the boat and argue
• The badness of the ruling is less than the badness of fighting/arguing for a change

I can personally point out a freakin' tonne of terrible house rules & rulings made by DMs, including at least a couple made by Zak on the webshow or blog. None of them have been tyrants or jerks worthy of quitting the game over; because people aren't caricatures. The fact nobody's quit your game just means that you've got more good than bad.

That I know of DMs (including myself) that have run rules-lite and rules-heavy campaigns without self-destructing tells me that social inertia does a better job at keeping a game together than the rules most the time. If the group is good, then the game will go on, good or bad. If the group is borderline, then the quality of the game can actually be the tipping point; and can actually deflect blame onto the players without them realizing it was the rules' fault. If the group is bad, then chances are the game will find a way to self-destruct no matter what.

[Username17]

Remember: having a group of four people approve of your handling of the situation doesn't mean that every thing you did was good. It doesn't even mean you did something well. Heck, Congress has an approval rating of 9%. That's incredibly low, but it still means that one out of eleven people approve of the job that Congress is doing. The House majority literally submitted a blank piece of paper for their 2014 legislative agenda, and changed the rules on putting a budget up for a vote that shut down the federal government for two and a half weeks and cost the American taxpayers twenty four billion dollars. And they still have a non-zero approval rating. There are twenty eight million people who approve of the job they are doing, even when a month ago they were literally being paid to not do their job.

The Applejacks argument is atrociously bad. The claim that something is good enough just because someone somewhere approves of it isn't just retarded: it's false.

-Username17

[deaddmwalking]

I'm still playing catch-up, so I apologize if this has already been brought up and/or responded to, but I can't wrap my head around these two quotes:

So my ruling might not be perfect, but it has the huge and radiant advantage of keeping the game moving. Nobody has to look it up or memorize it. (It sucks to spend time memorizing a rule you'll never use.)

And experience has proven (for my group) this is tremendous benefit that outweighs even the purported benefits of any extant heavier ruleset.

You apparently missed 2 things:
Players can ask about rules at any time.
Once discussed or used a rule is fixed and does not change
-

If you never change your rules once you've discussed them in game, how do you remember them without looking them up or memorizing them?

Are you sure you're not changing rules from time to time due to lack of remembering the proper precedent?

[MisterDee]

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?

Now, let me be clear: I'm only using this quote as an example of what I'm about to discuss, I'm very specifically not accusing Fuchs or anybody else of what's coming below.

That said:

If you've run a weekly campaign for ten years, odds are you haven't been a player in a campaign in a long time. So your perception on what players like, what they tolerate and what they dislike might very well be off.

I was the DM for a long, long time, and I thought I was doing a great job at it. Coincidentally, I was fairly fond of ignoring rules for the sake of the Holy Story.

Then, I got to play. And I found out exactly how fucking annoying it is to get fucked over by narrativist imperative.

It's not "I'm going to throw a tantrum or quit in disgust" bad. It's just "sigh a bit, argue for five minutes, let it go because it's not worth a fight" bad. And the campaign goes on, and the DM thinks he's doing a good job, and overall it's still an enjoyable campaign.

But it'd be a lot better if it wasn't for those irritating little bullshit "rulings" of the DM.

To be clear, some edge-case rules are just not worth looking up (in those cases, I tend to think the DM should rule in favour of the PCs). Other rules are easy to find, but just so bad they should be ignored (in those case, use clearly stated house-rules that the PCs can adjust to.)

But thinking that you're awesomely perfect in your rulings just because your players keep showing up is preventing you from becoming a better DM.

[Maxus]

The best defense against a tyrant DM will always be the players leaving him to DM an empty table.

Which is what me and some other did with Mark, My Old Bad DM, who mind-controlled PCs with no save. As I recall, my exact words were 'blow this for a lark'.

The situation was rather like that gnoll thing. One of the other people who left went back somewhat later, and then IMed me going "You were right about him." and gave me an account of what happened when his tripstar fighter was about roll an encounter singlehandedly, thanks to a spiked chain, some feats, an an Enlarge Person.

[Zak S]

Some improvements are universal (fix typos) but most of them move it in a direction--toward one audience and away from another. Be aware that you are doing that, and describe it. Don't pretend a solution is a panacea for all audiences, don't pretend a feature for some audiences is a universal bug.

That's it. That's the Applejacks argument. That's just restating it. That's just you doubling down on the idea that things being "good enough" to an entirely subjective standard means that changes are bad, or at least "not good." It's gaming relativism to the point where there's no point having any conversation about anything.

1. So then say what the metric for "objectively bad" is.

Because the goal of rules is to produce long term fun at the table for the players at that table.

2. "It's gaming relativism to the point where there's no point having any conversation about anything."

Is an obvious canard, because actually it allows for these important conversations "I'm size M, will this shirt fit me?" "Is there anyone size xxs? Does anybody need this thing?"

The only conversation it stops is the blowhard conversation "I'm size M""WELL THEN FUCK YOU BUDDY, YOU'RE OBJECTIVELY BAD!!!"

So address those issues and do not dodge them, Frank.

As for this tangent:

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.

No. Superman will save you whether you give him free soup or not. He's Superman, and he's an altruist.

And my mechanic addresses that: because by failing to grant Superman's request a person will suspect they are threatening Superman's life (or the planet's) and therefore threatening their supply of good deeds from Superman.

If Superman privately goes "Hey, I saved you and I think you should give Missy Bingle a pumpkin pie because that's a good thing to do" (i.e. request definitely not concerning Superman's survival or the world's and there's no possibility of shame) then Superman does not get a situational bonus to that request and has to fall back on his Charisma alone.

(Which is a high score, partially due to both his altruism and widespread public knowledge of it.)

Much as real known do-gooders find out when they ask people to privately make donations to various causes that benefit neither themselves nor the donor.

[Zak S]

deadDMwalking

Zak S wrote:
So my ruling might not be perfect, but it has the huge and radiant advantage of keeping the game moving. Nobody has to look it up or memorize it. (It sucks to spend time memorizing a rule you'll never use.)

And experience has proven (for my group) this is tremendous benefit that outweighs even the purported benefits of any extant heavier ruleset.


Zak S wrote:
You apparently missed 2 things:
Players can ask about rules at any time.
Once discussed or used a rule is fixed and does not change

-


If you never change your rules once you've discussed them in game, how do you remember them without looking them up or memorizing them?

I never said we never look up or memorize any rules, simply that some rules exist which aren't worth looking up or memorizing.

When I make a ruling, I write it down.

DSMatticus

"Let's say future Zak shows up at your door to give you a list of all the rulings you will ever make. Concerns about time paradoxes aside, would you show the list to your players for them to read if they wanted to?"

Yes, except rules/rulings which would spoilerize puzzles.

However, we would not necessarily consult them all thereafter unless someone explicitly said they remembered the rule and decided to make a decision based on it because the cost of looking things up mid-game is high.

. But if someone handed you a lightweight and extensible rules system for handling all the crazy combat maneuvers your players come up (which I think is pretty doable), would you really say no... because rules=bad?

I'd use it, but probably not all of it (even if it was perfect) because see above.

I never said "rules=bad".

People I think invented that erroneous concept because of the name "rulings not rules" which Matt Finch applied to the playstyle he and I and a ton of other people use and that name stuck.

But, no we don't actually think rules are bad, we think sometimes the cost of consulting a rule is higher than the reward.

So, for such people (AND ONLY FOR SUCH PEOPLE):

Written rules should be easy to consult.

And some rules on some subjects don't need to exist, as they cost of consulting them will inevitably be higher (for these GMs) than the value they provide.

[Zak S]

zugschef

Aha... So you mention every fuckin' rule you're not gonna use (because too lazy remembering or looking up) to your players beforehand?

"We're not using any of these rules until they come up or are discussed covers that--though in reverse"

It might even be the case that you look it up one time and just go with your feelingz! next time (because it was too bothersome when you were looking stuff up last time).

Incorrect. Rulings once made, stand.

I already said this a few times--that's the way this is done. Don't ask again.

What you are actually propagating is on the fly houseruling.

You're just now figuring that out?

Your entire argument to defend this position is really, "It works at my table!", which is obviously not an objective argument at all.

You've been imprecise

"It works at my table therefore it will work for all humans" would be not objective. It would be incorrect. So I never said it.

"It works at my table therefore you cannot make a statement that it never works " is a wholly objective statement.

So, next time you,or anybody else, makes a comment

Please demonstrate the ability to take in written information from a page and do not make that same mistake you just made again.

It makes you look dim, and makes your position seem as it could only be held by dim people.

[Zak S]

gamerGoyf

Zak S wrote:
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.

That only makes sense if players actions happen in a vacuum, when I do things on my turn the things I'm going to want to do are going to depend heavily on on not only my abilites but on the abilities of my enemies and allies. If the GM is handeling things by on the fly ruling that information in just not avalible to me it doesn't exist at all.

Well suppose guess I can play twenty questions with the GM every time my turn comes up but seriously what the fuck. Not only that but according to you I can't trust the stuff that already been written down because those rules may or may not be in play because he's too cool for school. Fuck that shit

Some players would rather ask the GM these 20 questions than memorize the rulebook.

You aren't morally superior to them (or inferior). They're just different people than you


And yeah, so that is why you can't argue them out of their position.


Do you not understand that some people are not you?

[Kaelik]

"It works at my table therefore it will work for all humans" would be not objective. It would be incorrect. So I never said it. But I did say that people who don't play my way are on training wheels because they are little children who can't do any better, and I also said that games should never be made in such a way that they don't require and/or discourage substantial alterations to rules from a DM.

Because I am a beacon of tolerance for other people's point of view and never ever say completely bullshit things about how other people suck and demand that games not be made to accommodate them.

[Zak S]

/quote]"It works at my table therefore it will work for all humans" would be not objective. It would be incorrect. So I never said it. But I did say that people who don't play my way are on training wheels because they are little children who can't do any better,

No, I just said 'training wheels". You interpolated the thing about "little children".

and I also said that games should never be made in such a way that thy don't require rulings from a DM.

When did I say that?

[Kaelik]

No, I just said 'training wheels". You interpolated the thing about "little children".

Your right, because training wheels don't have any association with children or with the inability ride a proper bike. And you definitively didn't intend that as an insult at all.

In related news, your DMing style is like a pile of shit, in that it stinks and you pull it out of your ass. But don't get offended by the connotations that come with ass, shit, and stink, because it's just an analogy.

When did I say that?

In your stupid suit analogy.

[deaddmwalking]

Trying to argue that every discussion requires a specified target audience is assinine.

Staking out a position in the English language includes a presumed [to me]. 'This is shit and this is why' is functionally the same as 'this is shit to me and this is why'. The 'to me' is presumed because you're the one speaking.

Ideally, if your reasons are sensible, your complaints will address the same issues that a large segment of the population shares. But it's totally possible that it won't.

Someone saying 'you say this because you value x, but I disagree because I value y' is not precluded because you started with the statement 'this is shit'. Sometimes, the value parts don't matter. And even if they DO, discussing the parts of the game that are shit to one side or the other can lead to design premises that lead to the satisfaction of ALL SIDES.

Failure to specify a target audience when making a generalization is not a failure in the argument. In fact, most statements require extrapolating from your own experience to find out if there is ANYONE that is willing to defend a contrary opinion.

Example:
I say 'Fighters suck and this is why'.

From this statement I can find people who disagree and why they disagree. I don't have to speculate on what types of people might or might exist that disagree with this opinion (if I did, I'd likely skew towards 'only people with brain damage will hold a counter position' - instead of finding out that some people, for instance, are okay with one class being good at low levels and crappy at high levels).

Surely, any statement I make will have people maintaining a counter belief. Depending on how poor their reasons and/or how small their numbers, I can work from that position to determine whether they should be catered to or ignored if I want to create something that is enjoyed by the broadest possible audience.

There are lots of reasons to try to make something appealing to a demographic larger than 'just me', or 'just me and my friends'. In fact, even in the small group that is people I play RPGs with regularly, there are different tastes. By trying to make a broadly palatable game, I'm likely to include the tastes of my own group - even ones that they weren't aware they had. Sampling and discussing with a large group is GOOD.

Trying to say 'each table should come up with whatever suits it best' might be IDEAL, but it is not practical. Not every group is CAPABLE of coming up with whatever suits it best. If it were, nobody would buy any rules and would have just as much fun building the system from the ground up. The fact that there are some people who might be able to do that DOES NOT indicate that having tools for those who are not is somehow less desireable.

I'll take the drama of an internet shit-storm that actually produces interesting discussion to a 'let everyone find whats suits them best and never suggest improvements under any circumstances'. That direction leads to stagnation. Outside of gaming, it would have failed to produce all of the technology and art that we enjoy today.

[Zak S]

No, I just said 'training wheels". You interpolated the thing about "little children".

Your right, because training wheels don't have any association with children or with the inability ride a proper bike. And you definitively didn't intend that as an insult at all.

Again:

"Training wheels" is, like "Magical Tea Party", not a derogatory term.

Hearing "Training wheels" is the rhetorical price of saying "Magical Tea Party"/

When did I say that?

In your stupid suit analogy.

Then you misunderstood.

Some people can buy a suit off the rack and find that it fits. GOOD FOR THEM!! Happy day.

The (different) person who buys a rules-light ruleset specifically built to be customized and isn't told that by the author has that author to blame.

Glad for the opportunity to clear that up for you.

You may now apologize for jumping to conclusions.

[Zak S]

Trying to argue that every discussion requires a specified target audience is assinine.

Staking out a position in the English language includes a presumed [to me]. 'This is shit and this is why' is functionally the same as 'this is shit to me and this is why'. The 'to me' is presumed because you're the one speaking.

Incorrect.

Some things are facts (the math here doesn't add up, it is a mistake, no-one would defend it or use it once the mistake's pointed out), some things are opinions (I don't like how the math here adds up,it leads to consequences I don't liek but clearly other people do like).

Confusing those two things confuses the discussion and confuses fact with opinion. And leads to factual errors.

Factual errors in public lead to bullshit.

You can pretty much say what you like in public, but when you lie on purpose in a supposed conversation about nonfictional things you are basically making everything worse. Every time.

A conversation about practical things based on inaccurate facts as a given is a useless conversation. All the conclusions are suspect.

You are essentially defending your right to be confused or confuse people in order to score rhetorical points.

The fact that there are some people who might be able to do that DOES NOT indicate that having tools for those who are not is somehow less desireable.

I do not understand why you would feel compelled to make this obvious point.

For the 6th time See this thread, page 11, Zak's second comment, item #2.

Do you not see that?

Do you not see that?

Do you not see that?

Do you not see that?

Do you not se that?

Why are you acting like you can't see that?

Why do I have to even point that out to you?

I'll take the drama of an internet shit-storm that actually produces interesting discussion to a 'let everyone find whats suits them best and never suggest improvements under any circumstances'.

Again, this seems to be another case of basic illiteracy on your part.

"Don't pretend your opinion is a fact" is not the same as "Do not propose that x improvement might work in y case".

If you think that it does then you need to make that argument rather than saying

"IF I CAN'T START A MONKEY SHIT-FIGHT THEN I CAN'T ACTUALLY PUBLICALLY PROPOSE A RULES IMPROVEMENT!"

You can and it is often done. You go "I like this. Nothing extant provides that. I have created this. Try it."

Holy shit, dude did that never occur to you ever in your life and your mind is just blown?

Probably not. Probably you realized it's possible to discuss rules improvements without being a douche it's just not fun for you.

[Kaelik]

"Training wheels" is, like "Magical Tea Party", not a derogatory term.

Hearing "Training wheels" is the rhetorical price of saying "Magical Tea Party"

No, both of them are derogatory terms, the difference is that I am an honest fuck who tells you that your method is not as good, and you are a dishonest fuck who lies and says you believe that everything is equal, but still calls other games shit.

Then you misunderstood.

No, I didn't. It doesn't matter what you wish you had said now, it matters what you said.

Some people can buy a suit off the rack and find that it fits. GOOD FOR THEM!! Happy day.

The (different) person who buys a rules-light ruleset specifically built to be customized and isn't told that by the author has that author to blame.

Great that on recognizing that what you actually said was a piece of shit, but how about admitting that what you actually said is that games should never be made with the intention that people be able to play it off the rack.

You may now apologize for jumping to conclusions.

Oh you mean how you apologized for being completely 100% wrong about what I said by not apologizing and declaring that even though I didn't say it you can tell that in essence I meant the the thing I never said because you are so great?

Fuck you, how about just once in eleven fucking pages admitting that the thing you actually said was not what you meant, or was what you meant but you have changed your mind, and that something you said was wrong?

Are you worried that it is a secret trap and if you admit that your internet argument had a flaw then your claim to always being 100% perfect at all rulings ever won't be believed? Protip: no one believes your claim to always being 100% perfect in rulings right now either. So maybe just say "Yes, I Zak S did in fact say something that is not true, and was wrong, whoopsie, my bad."