Why do people fetishize Magic Tea Party

[Cyberzombie]

Convincing him that using the engine to do the pushing for him is bound to meet resistance - the way he's doing it 'works', so you actually do have to show how it's better.

That's really hard to do. The best way is to actually SHOW them, not just tell them. Anything you say is suspect for all kinds of reasons.

I have no clue why people enjoy mindless grinding on MMOs, but I know it's not because MMOs are the only video game they've ever played. The majority of people have tried both ways, and have come to an opinion of what they like better. That shit happens.

Some people will like apples more than oranges. Some people prefer chess over checkers. Some people find Call of Duty more fun than Battlefield. Some people played 3E then switched to 4E and liked it better. Some people love Skyrim's open world, other people think it needed more structure.

You will see garbage arguments from 4E fans claiming people "never tried it" or "never gave 4E a chance" on the WotC boards. This isn't the case at all. People didn't need to be shown the light, 4E just wasn't for them. It wasn't a matter of ignorance, it was a matter of preference.

The same is true of rules lite versus rules heavy gaming. It's not a matter of rules lite gamers not knowing any better or not having tried the other way. They tried it. They didn't like it. There's no objective right or wrong, fun is entirely subjective. If everyone had the same conception of fun, there wouldn't be multiple games, everyone would have conglomerated into the Ultimate Universal Fun Supergame.

[gamerGoyf]

so you started a thread for the sole purpose of forcing people to agree with your playstyle?

No I started this thread to gather better arguments against a particular school of game design thought. A school of thought that if allowed to proliferate will prevent games I would like to play from being developed. "Rulings not Rules" is worse than useless from a design perspective because it can be use to shut down any discussion about whether or not the rules are bad or how to improve them.

The same is true of rules lite versus rules heavy gaming. It's not a matter of rules lite gamers not knowing any better or not having tried the other way. They tried it. They didn't like it. There's no objective right or wrong, fun is entirely subjective. If everyone had the same conception of fun, there wouldn't be multiple games, everyone would have conglomerated into the Ultimate Universal Fun Supergame.

But rules, heavy or rules light, all game rules have the same end goal. Ruling over Rules, is ultimately a net negative to those goals, it makes resolution slower and reduces depth. This isn't an issue of rules heavy games vs rules light games this is a universal issue for all games.

[shadzar]

A school of thought that if allowed to proliferate will prevent games I would like to play from being developed.

it has already proliferated for over 50 years. and yet there is no law ordained or manmade that prevents YOU from designing the game you want to play.

isnt that neat?

your problem is that you are attempting to go into a crowd that thinks one way and get them to agree with your way, for your sake. well, welcome to the world. nobody gives a damn about you.

you would do better to go somewhere to discuss games with people that agree with you to begin with than to argue with people that do not. WotC made your game twice. 3.x and 4/E. all you have to do is find the people that like those games and fix and adapt them. Have you tried The Gaming Den? They have a forum 90% full of people who lust over 3.x and obsess over it, to where they have even made changes to fix it in places to have "rules" for things it did not, and fix those for which it did.

now, you are still going to run into people there that disagree with you, but that is the world itself. unless you only surround yourself with people that agree with you, then you will find people that disagree.

it jsut sounds more like you are wanting to troll an OSR forum and get ammunition for doing so, than interest in actual game design, or you would be discussing the specific playstyle you have with like minded people.

your attitude that someone else's playstyle is cancerous to YOU being able to play a game you like is childish.

i said, and remain to say 3.x and WotC designed D&D is utter trash not deserving of the name D&D. i stand by that. i also say, 3.x and 4/E could have always been made for ANYONE that wanted it.. they just don't get to skin D&D and wear its coat as the name for that new game.

not even sure what game you are talking about wherever, but the point remains. YOU can play any way you want to. if you are having problems finding people to play with, then blame WotC, WW, etc that run edition treadmills that fracture their players into groups under the same game name. find a company that will make a game with a focus on what they want to do and have the balls to stick with it. if they make a game you like, then do your best to GET them to stick with it.

the problem is games aren't made for players in this day and age, they are made for accountants. the only goal of game design now by companies is revenue and profits. only gamers not seeking to get rich overnight will be able to design a game that people enjoy, or for a specific type of gamer or genre, etc...

[Fuchs]

The same is true of rules lite versus rules heavy gaming. It's not a matter of rules lite gamers not knowing any better or not having tried the other way. They tried it. They didn't like it. There's no objective right or wrong, fun is entirely subjective. If everyone had the same conception of fun, there wouldn't be multiple games, everyone would have conglomerated into the Ultimate Universal Fun Supergame.

This. I started rules-heavy. 2E, lots of splat, including later Combat&Tactics and Spells&Magic. And 3E was far superiour when it came out, so we switched. And we still use the core engine from 3E, but most of the little rules are gone. Forgotten. Replaced. We got older, and crunch lost its allure. Preferences changed. We still use the d20 core system though, for D&D.

Another point to consider is that changing systems means time spent learning a new system. The more complex the system, the more time needs to be spent. If the system offers not enough of an improvement to justify the time spent on changing we'll not change.

[Fuchs]

But rules, heavy or rules light, all game rules have the same end goal. Ruling over Rules, is ultimately a net negative to those goals, it makes resolution slower and reduces depth. This isn't an issue of rules heavy games vs rules light games this is a universal issue for all games.

Nope. Rulings over rules makes resolution faster when the GM would have to look up some exotic rule instead.

[Cyberzombie]

But rules, heavy or rules light, all game rules have the same end goal. Ruling over Rules, is ultimately a net negative to those goals, it makes resolution slower and reduces depth. This isn't an issue of rules heavy games vs rules light games this is a universal issue for all games.

The end goal of a game is to be fun. I don't see how rulings are ultimately a negative to that goal.

[Korgan0]

https://twitter.com/grognardsTXT/status ... 4431007744

People think we're stupid nerds!

[shadzar]

This. I started rules-heavy. 2E, lots of splat, including later Combat&Tactics and Spells&Magic. And 3E was far superiour when it came out, so we switched.

statement and question...

you realize that 2E wasn't meant to be played with everything.

how did 3.x go after it begin to amass 100+ books?

[Zak S]

TL;DR For what I'm about to say


NOW HERE'S THE NUT OF YOUR VAST CONFUSION

Here you are being hypocritical again. Earlier you indicated that you were happy to make a game just for the use of yourself and your associates.

Yes: I make one just for me and ...

Why should I expect you to make two games - one for you and one for me?

YOU make a DIFFERENT game for you--or for whatever audience you like.

AND NEITHER OF US CLAIMS THE GAME WE JUST MADE IS SUPERIOR

TL;DR for what I'm about to say

Left handed scissors should exist and there isn't any good argument they shouldn't or that they're "worse" than right-handed scissors.

And there isn't any good argument that somehow scissor-critique is damaged just because you can't claim left-handed scissors SUCK ASS just because you're right handed.

Once again, you're guilty of an apparent goal shift.

"Apparent".

I am here to clarify for you because, again, (see p 1) people here make ignorant assumptions and I have to fill in this ignorance with info people don't already have. Goalposts haven't moved in 4 years, and certainly not since pg 1.

But clearly, Zak from yesterday and Zak from today disagree on whether you should "begrudge people a tool that works better for them and demand only their own be available".

Incorrect, Again: see page 11 of this thread, my 2nd comment, Item 2.

I have discussed the qualities of a complete rule-set versus a rule-set that is missing elements that are required in game.

Perhaps there is a lack of common language here.

Name a retroclone or post-retroclone that is "missing elements that are required in game" and say what the missing element is.

If a game produces an undesireable output, I can talk about that as an issue. Whether the specific output is undesireable 'to me' or 'to realists' or 'to cinematic action fans' or any other identified group can come after the claim of an undesireable output.

Yes, you can say half a thing and then say the rest later.

It wastes time, but you can do it.

As a parent, I know that most people start with 'I don't like something', and then they will work to figure out 'why'. To resolve conflicts, I often have to ask 'why do you think this is unfair'. But I don't expect my six-year-old to fully develop the reasons why something is unfair before complaining.

And I don't think adults get to act like 6 year olds.

Again: slowwwwwly extracting the reason under the hyperbole just wastes time.

The observation 'that's unfair' is just as useful to me as a starting point than 'it's unfair that she got two pieces of candy when I only got one'. In fact, the second one may not lead to conflict resolution as easily because the premise may be flawed. The problem is 'I think something is unfair'... The problem is not 'she got two pieces of candy and I only got one'. The resolution might be to give her another piece of candy, but it might be something completely different. Stating the problem in the simplest terms is a useful starting point. Then as we start exploring the problem we can determine if additional information is relevant or misleading.

As soon as an adult someone articulates the way a 6 year old might, they have revealed themself to be among the dumb.

Given there's a limited amount of time in the day, you have to a have a bar beneath which someone has sunk so low you don't examine their input.

Someone who starts with a factual error or childish claim has about 1000 people smarter than them talking games at any moment, so their input should not be prioritized.

Like, for example, someone who calls a short paragraph "eye murder" should be ignored forever. There are a billion people smarter than that, why not talk to them first before trying to dig sense out of that kind of whiny hyperbole?

But if my design goals include making the game FUN for a WIDE AUDIENCE (which is frequently a design goal not based soley on financial success), I'll probably try to make a pair of scissors useable by anybody. It just so happens that I'm ambidextrous, and while I only rarely write with my left hand (mostly to keep in practice during boring meetings) I can and do use scissors with both hands. I have a pair of scissors on my desk that I can use equally well in either hand. Ultimately, if a product can be used equally well by either group, it is a superior product than one that can only be used by one or the other.

"Ultimately pizza with all known toppings is superior to pepperoni pizza or vegetarian pizza--because the LITERALLY EVERYTHING pizza can be made into a pepperoni pizza by most people, simply by picking things off!".

That's insane.

Either we're designing ONE system and we're trying to make it the best possible system,

(crazy--since there are mutually exclusive audiences)

or we're comparing TWO EXISTING systems. In that case, there's no reason to 'eliminate' one of the systems.

Now you're getting it.

And no need to do what you did above, which is claim one of the 2 specialist systems is "superior".

The exhaustive system is not, intrinsically, better than a non-exhaustive system. However, a system that supplies resolutions for expected actions is superior to one that does not.

To me this just sounds like backsliding into insanity after a brief moment of reason but maybe if you answer the above about what your example of a system "lacking resolutions for expected actions" is it might clear it up.

But we probably do need rules that explain catching on fire under normal circumstances (and probably with additional clarification about when doused in flammables) - since those are the types of things we expect to happen in games with some regularity.

Since "catching fire" rules are usually not entangled on the page with other rules, I have no problem with including them even if they never get used in game.

If, however, they are included in the description of the Fireball spell, or Fireball has special flammability rules, then that's an example of a place where I prefer no special flammability rules there on that page to even good rules.

In the game I'd publish for the niche audience of people like me: Fireball should establish the shape of the fireball and the damage and the rest (oxygen deprivation, flammability, persistence of the flames, etc) should be left out.

That's a literal question. I'm having trouble thinking how anyone of good will would begrudge people a tool that works better for them and demand only their own be available.

Again there's your zero sum game.
No, you don't have to make sure "everyone can use it"
You make ONE game for these people.
And a DIFFERENT game for these other people.
Is this really that hard for you to wrap your head around?

So you're asking me, personally, to do twice as much work

No: see above.

[Zak S]

Also, there's the eye murder. I don't want to be a dick about it, but Zak you need to hit enter less.

So....short paragraphs is "eye murder".

Nice to know the stereotype of you guys as hypersensitive anal-retentives is, at least for some of y'all, totally true.

Howling "THE FORMATTING IT BURNSSSSS...." is pretty much an indicator that somebody's wayyyyy outside even the most generous conception of consensus reality. Go count some matches.

[gamerGoyf]

Zak you formatting is so shitty you broke the page unfuck your tags

Edit:Thank you, given that at least four different people have complained about your eyecancer can you now stop posting eyecancer.

Nope. Rulings over rules makes resolution faster when the GM would have to look up some exotic rule instead.

So wait not only are your rulings perfect and always totally satisfactory and fair to everyone you can make them faster than it takes look up something in a book. Can you please just stop posting now. It's been established already that your games are "fine" because there's only one rule. That rule is "go with what Fuchs says or he'll throw a tantrum".

The end goal of a game is to be fun. I don't see how rulings are ultimately a negative to that goal.

Because rulings create inconsistency and bog down the game, this makes the game less fun.

[shadzar]

Also, there's the eye murder. I don't want to be a dick about it, but Zak you need to hit enter less.

So....short paragraphs is "eye murder".

Nice to know the stereotype of you guys as hypersensitive anal-retentives is, at least for some people. totally true.

Howling "THE FORMATTING IT BURNSSSSS...." is pretty much an indicator that somebody's wayyyyy outside even the most generous conception of consensus reality. Go count some matches.

they are mostly just assholes. when you type a lot contiguously into a single paragraph violating context and jsut shoving anything into it, they will in turn bitch because you are trying to say too much at once. so at this point, fuck em. type as much as you want WITHOUT hitting enter and unless bullet points, then let them sort it out and take the cock out of their eyes so they can see better. they really dont know the point and purpose of a paragraph is to convey the context of ONE subject, and jsut want people to keep typing when a simple statement is all that need be made, and then you carriage return to make the next statement and so on. one reason i dont care about contractions and the like, and have on occasion thought i would just do them one better and not even use spaces, since they just like large chunks of text. i might try that with my next post. no punctuation and no spaces either. those people around here should LOVE that right?


but yeah, TGD mostly assholes that want to look important, thus the "pedigree" thread. attention whores without an audience.

[Zak S]

The end goal of a game is to be fun. I don't see how rulings are ultimately a negative to that goal.

Because rulings create inconsistency and bog down the game, this makes the game less fun.

"I like my Aunt Lily so I sent her a birthday card. I don't see how that's a problem"
"Aunts are named Lisa and live in Bellevue. Ohio!"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egocentris ... r_children

[angelfromanotherpin]

So....short paragraphs is "eye murder".

A short paragraph is one thing; a thing that is usually 3-5 sentences that happen to be short. Double spacing between each sentence is something else. What that thing might be, I'm not sure, but it includes 'not formatting at a high school level.'

Presenting an argument in a format that is difficult to read is damaging to your credibility. Just as people are inherently dubious about text presented in all caps or no caps or red text, they are inherently dubious about someone who seems to have a strange relationship with their return key. This is especially relevant considering how many times you have complained about people not reading your words. Maybe that would be less of an issue if you made your words more readable?

[gamerGoyf]

The end goal of a game is to be fun. I don't see how rulings are ultimately a negative to that goal.

Because rulings create inconsistency and bog down the game, this makes the game less fun.

"I like my Aunt Lily so I sent her a birthday card. I don't see how that's a problem"
"Aunts are named Lisa and live in Bellevue. Ohio!"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi

now stop doing it

[Zak S]

"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.

Not at all, because whenever someone is going to rear-end me when I'm driving in my Pinto, I just move out of the way. In fact, everyone I've ever driven around with has commented how awesome I am at not getting rear-ended. That's why it's the perfect car for me and my family. It's not a bad car, it's just not the car for you.

False equivalence.

Plus, of course, let's say this problem which has never befallen anyone I've ever met gaming in real life (not to say it hasn't befallen you) happens, then I'll reconsider.

If one day a session goes poorly because I didn't do whatever you think I'm supposed to do--I'll reconsider.

Hell, if one day a session goes poorly for anyone who's ever written or said anything useful to me about games because they didn't follow your advice then I'll reconsider.

Because a pinto can kill me and one bad session won't kill anyone.

But right now, not only is the lack of crunchlard in rules-light games not killing me, it's actually providing a positive benefit unavailable from other games.

I'm not going to play a game that actively works worse for me for years and years just out of fear of a theoretical threat whose only consequence--even if it should come to pass --would only affect 2-4 hours of game time.

[Zak S]

This is especially relevant considering how many times you have complained about people not reading your words. Maybe that would be less of an issue if you made your words more readable?

An argument could be written upside down in caps with a crayon and you'd still be obligated to read all of it and make sure you understand as much of it as you humanly could before responding to the substance of it and dong any less proves you don't matter. Or, if clarity was truly undermined, ask the author a question.

Presentation can affect peoples' reception of the substance ideas-and if they let it, they're dull-witted and have nothing useful to say.

Read it, read all of it--or don't respond.

[silva]

Ok folks, some people like MTP or light rules, while other people like heavy rules. And the hobby provides enough of those for all.

This discussion got boring because its like "I like apples and your oranges are bad" and "no, I like oranges and your apples are bad" by now.

Lets move on.

[virgil]

நீங்கள் அலகின் இருப்பது மீண்டும் மீண்டும் கோல் மாற்றுவதால். எதிர் செய்து தொடங்க, நீங்கள் அதை இருக்கும் போது பத்திகள் முழு பயன்படுத்தி தொடங்க. நீங்கள் என் பதவியை புறக்கணித்து, நான் நீங்கள் பதிலளிக்க வேண்டும்.

[nockermensch]

நீங்கள் அலகின் இருப்பது மீண்டும் மீண்டும் கோல் மாற்றுவதால். எதிர் செய்து தொடங்க, நீங்கள் அதை இருக்கும் போது பத்திகள் முழு பயன்படுத்தி தொடங்க. நீங்கள் என் பதவியை புறக்கணித்து, நான் நீங்கள் பதிலளிக்க வேண்டும்.

私はあなたがそこに何をしたかを参照。

[Zak S]

நீங்கள் அலகின் இருப்பது மீண்டும் மீண்டும் கோல் மாற்றுவதால். எதிர் செய்து தொடங்க, நீங்கள் அதை இருக்கும் போது பத்திகள் முழு பயன்படுத்தி தொடங்க. நீங்கள் என் பதவியை புறக்கணித்து, நான் நீங்கள் பதிலளிக்க வேண்டும்.

"If you change the goal of the unit being repeated. Start doing the opposite, you can start using it when you're full paragraphs. If you ignore my post, I will respond to you."

That's why I almost wrote "Upside down in crayon in french" but then removed "in french".

It's also why I included the caveat about asking a question if there was a lack of clarity.

At any rate: typing in short paragraphs makes anal-retentives sad, but does not actually affect clarity. So whatevs.

[gamerGoyf]

நீங்கள் அலகின் இருப்பது மீண்டும் மீண்டும் கோல் மாற்றுவதால். எதிர் செய்து தொடங்க, நீங்கள் அதை இருக்கும் போது பத்திகள் முழு பயன்படுத்தி தொடங்க. நீங்கள் என் பதவியை புறக்கணித்து, நான் நீங்கள் பதிலளிக்க வேண்டும்.

நல்ல, ஆனால் நீங்கள் இணைய மொழிபெயர்ப்பாளர் உணர அதை புரிந்து கொள்ள வேண்டும் என்று கடினமாக இல்லை உள்ளது

பஞ்ச் அடடா பிற்பகுதியில்

[Kaelik]

Presentation can affect peoples' reception of the substance ideas-and if they let it, they're dull-witted and have nothing useful to say.

Funny coming from the person who tells people they are bad people for enjoy arguments presented differently than you prefer.

[Zak S]

Presentation can affect peoples' reception of the substance ideas-and if they let it, they're dull-witted and have nothing useful to say.

Funny coming from the person who tells people they are bad people for enjoy arguments presented differently than you prefer.

1. No, they're bad for enjoying slowing down progress.

2. And, as this conversation demonstrates, I am still engaging the substance of the arguments, even if they are presented by asinine people.

Being such a dick that nobody wants to engage you usually insulates you from having to hear rational objections to what you say. Maybe that's, subconsciously, why you do it.

[K]

Ok folks, some people like MTP or light rules, while other people like heavy rules. And the hobby provides enough of those for all.

The problem is that there isn't enough room. There just isn't enough room for people who make grand pronouncements about the way that people should play and what rules they should be using when that person doesn't learn rules and thinks his improvised rules are better than anything that anyone else in the hobby could ever design.

Pretending to be an expert in something that you are ignorant about is damaging.

There is no war between rules-heavy people and rules-light people. There is a war between people giving bad design advice to people trying to write rules for their rules-light and rules-heavy games.