Why do people fetishize Magic Tea Party

Cyberzombie · Post by **Cyberzombie** » Mon Dec 09, 2013 5:32 pm

There's a larger issue here that I'm going to address. It's more serious than anything having to do with imaginary elves or dragons.

It seems to me that a good number of people here see no problem with an underlying philosophy of intolerance.

In your lives, you're going to run into people who do things different than you. They may worship differently than you, they may have a different sexual orientation or they may eat different foods. You can take the stance that anyone doing things different is (quoting MGuy above) "absolutely in the wrong" and that your way of life is the best by default. You may label others as retards, communists, infidels or your favorite racial slurs. Maybe you decide that these people aren't worthy to play your favorite game, live in your town or drink from the same water fountain you do.

Is that what you want to be as human beings? Is that the philosophy you want to champion as you live through your lives?

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Mon Dec 09, 2013 5:49 pm

Are you seriously trying to equate disagreements over game design philosophy with racism?

NineInchNall · Post by **NineInchNall** » Mon Dec 09, 2013 5:54 pm

... What the fuck? Since when is "you're stupid and wrong about things" equivalent to "them darkies have to drink from a different fountain"?

You're insane.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:36 pm

Hey, guys, be more understanding. Maybe you don't want to call people racist for disagreeing with you, but if it works for him then who are you to tell him he's doing it wrong? That's exactly the kind of self-absorbed, egocentric thinking that got us into this mess and I think the two of you should apologize for not being more considerate of BAHAHAHA OH MY GOD

I take back every terrible thing I said about this thread. The punchline made the grueling 23 page setup worth it. Round of applause for cyberzombie, ladies and gents!

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:44 pm

Cyberzombie wrote:There's a larger issue here that I'm going to address. It's more serious than anything having to do with imaginary elves or dragons.

It seems to me that a good number of people here see no problem with an underlying philosophy of intolerance.

In your lives, you're going to run into people who do things different than you. They may worship differently than you, they may have a different sexual orientation or they may eat different foods. You can take the stance that anyone doing things different is (quoting MGuy above) "absolutely in the wrong" and that your way of life is the best by default. You may label others as retards, communists, infidels or your favorite racial slurs. Maybe you decide that these people aren't worthy to play your favorite game, live in your town or drink from the same water fountain you do.

Is that what you want to be as human beings? Is that the philosophy you want to champion as you live through your lives?

On the other hand, have you considered the very real possibility that you're a whiny little bitch who is unable to muster any compelling arguments for their position and is forced to cry about people being mean to have anything to say at all. Here, let me call you a waaambulance.

Is that better? Did the waaambulance fix your bruised ego? Give you a nice anti-inflammatory for those wicked burns you got? Sooth your hurt feelings? That's good I guess.

The bottom line is that ideas don't get a free pass on, well, anything. We don't have to be nice to ideas, and we shouldn't be. Ideas should be torn down and subjected to extreme scrutiny. Whining that people were mean to you when you presented an idea is worth zero points. If you can't defend the idea with its actual merits, you should accept that the idea is crap without merits and you should drop it.

For the last several pages, you've come up with nothing but relativist crap. Relativism is not even logically consistent. If you can't do better than relativism, you should just shut the fuck up because you are not helping your case.

-Username17

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Mon Dec 09, 2013 7:14 pm

Cyberzombie wrote:In your lives, you're going to run into people who do things different than you. They may worship differently than you, they may have a different sexual orientation or they may eat different foods. You can take the stance that anyone doing things different is (quoting MGuy above) "absolutely in the wrong" and that your way of life is the best by default. You may label others as retards, communists, infidels or your favorite racial slurs. Maybe you decide that these people aren't worthy to play your favorite game, live in your town or drink from the same water fountain you do.

Is that what you want to be as human beings? Is that the philosophy you want to champion as you live through your lives?

The philosophy we want to champion is objecting to beliefs that are wrong, as opposed to people doing things differently. Notice that this is why we can (consistent with our position that wrong beliefs are bad) say that racism and homophobia are bad. Where as you cannot consistent with your stupid position that we should be nice to people who do things differently object to people who differently from you hate black people and gays.

Stinktopus · Post by **Stinktopus** » Mon Dec 09, 2013 7:26 pm

Kaelik's hostility is well known to be a driving force behind internet rape culture.

Cyberzombie · Post by **Cyberzombie** » Mon Dec 09, 2013 8:09 pm

virgil wrote: Are you seriously trying to equate disagreements over game design philosophy with racism?

Yes.

They're the same underlying principle of intolerance. Whether you think there's a one true master race, a one true god, a one true sexual preference or a one true way to play D&D, it's the same basic philosophy. There's some group that does things differently than another group and that group decides that it is doing things the one correct way and the other group must be converted, persecuted and/or driven out. There's a similar pattern of thinking in religious wars, anti-gay groups, racism and almost every form of prejudice out there. It all starts with intolerance.

In fact, there's almost a direct parallel between this thread and the debate on sexual orientation, where you've got two gay people having sex somewhere and then you've got anti-gay groups saying that they should quit having the sex they enjoy because they're not doing it correctly. Real love is between a man and a woman, and not between two women or two men. Even though those gay people having sex doesn't affect them at all, they have no problem making blanket statements about how gays should stop having sex entirely if they don't want to follow the one true way.

That's almost exactly the argument I've heard in this thread directed at rules-lite playstyles. Think about it a minute.

While intolerance in the field of RPG gaming isn't nearly as damaging to society as other more mainstream prejudices, it's not a healthy philosophy to be promoting.

fectin · Post by **fectin** » Mon Dec 09, 2013 8:18 pm

Citation needed for every single clause in that screed.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Mon Dec 09, 2013 8:44 pm

Kaelik wrote:The philosophy we want to champion is objecting to beliefs that are wrong, as opposed to people doing things differently.

except your definition basically means, when all is said and done as in this thread and the reason it was started, that it is BECAUSE it is different from the way you wish it to be that they are wrong.

there is no objectivity you can place on someone elses subjective views. but that is what is trying to be done when people claim "rules not rulings are objectively better".... for who?

that is the point that has been tried to be made over and over that you cannot find one system for all people, because people do NOT agree at all times. it happened when 2nd came out and 1e people bashed it and its new ideas, it happened when 3.0 came out and people said its changes were wrong. it happened when 3.5 came out, then when 4th came out.... it will keep happening all the time as people do not understand that there is no oneway for all.

this is why i stand by 2nd didnt do much except clean up a mess made by Gary that he had to do alone, and changed some names of things that really don't matter at all (demons and devils), while 3.0 and onward have little to nothing to do with D&D to deserve the name on the cover. BUT, 3.x 4/E, DDN should all exist like oWoD, nWoD, etc because people should be able to play the game they like, not try to take one someone else liked and change it to suit them and throw out those that it suited before. thus fantasy heartbreakers abound in this era because people CAN make the game they want, and there are many, and not everyone has to play any one of them, nor do they have to agree on how to play them all across the world.

you are basically trying to "champion that whole "someone is wrong on the internet"" thing, or just validate yourself and your own beliefs from external sources rather from within yourself.

kind of pathetic if you ask me.

gamerGoyf · Post by **gamerGoyf** » Mon Dec 09, 2013 9:05 pm

Zak S wrote:derp

Sweet Madokami in heaven why are you still posting? Isn't the hole you've dug for yourself deep enough already? Do you think that you'll reach china if you keep digging long enough? Let the thread die already >_<

@dDM why are you still responding to Zak he is either trolling or incredibly stupid, regardless his posts are derped I can tell from the fallacies and from seeing quite a few derps in my time.

@Cyber what the cluck, disparaging peoples playstyle is not what we are doing in this thread, and even if that was what we we're doing it wouldn't be the equivalent of racism. Take a chill pill.

Good golly this thread is cancer. Why did I ever think this was a good idea?

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Mon Dec 09, 2013 9:06 pm

Please tell me we aren't going to encourage his insane "you know who else is mean to people? Racists!" rant with legitimate discussion. Yes, his comparison is stupid and likely offensive to anyone who has ever been the victim of any legitimate prejudice whatsoever. Yes, he is a whiny baby with a massive persecution complex. Yes, everyone except him (hopefully) understands that. Yes, it would be better if he understood it too and stopped being stupid, offensive, and whiny. But the best way to handle people when they drop a hilariously inappropriate (cousin of) Godwin's law on you is not to engage them on why they're wrong - it's flippant and derisive mockery. They've given up the privilege of being taken seriously, and continuing to do so only gives them the mistaken impression that they didn't just do something horribly embarrassing (or embarrasingly horrible, take your pick).

Zak S · Post by **Zak S** » Mon Dec 09, 2013 11:13 pm

This whole stupid conversation began with people bitching about whatever game it is they think I play.
You've become confused. Fortunately, the thread still exists so you can review how this thread started. Before you posted, nobody said anything about Zak S or your game.

You are completely wrong about a verifiable fact.

So, before we go any further, we have to do a sanity check on you.

Go back to the first page.

Tussock links to my blog, to things I wrote about things in my game.

Then Archmage lies about me talking about my game.

THEN I show up.

I clarify.

Then people bitch about my game. Not some abstract game.

Can you read that?

Because if you can't (and if anyone who would back you up on that can't) you're either nuts or you literally might be living in an alternate universe, either way, there is no way this conversation can continue meaningfully unless we can be assured you have the presence of mind to acknowledge that you are totally fucking wrong.

Fuchs · Post by **Fuchs** » Mon Dec 09, 2013 11:37 pm

This is the Den. For all the claims about liking intellectual honesty here people never admit they are wrong. They will twist your words, and outright lie to save face.

fectin · Post by **fectin** » Mon Dec 09, 2013 11:48 pm

I don't read it that way.

It looks like tussock tried to argue that your style was the best, by linking your blog. See for example where he explains that he wants to play that way, but can't pull it off. Unless you think that tussock was specifically begging for an invite to your table, that suggests he was speaking abstractly, not specifically. Archmage tried to pull out what tussock was actually talking about (maybe successfully; maybe not), then you showed up to defend your specific game.

Kinda like this:
Someone: Why are variant rules for chess unpopular?
Tussock: Man, chess is best when every move turns into sexy mud-wrestling! Zak has the best mudchess! Oh how I wish I had a mud pit like his...
Archmage: [quotes some mudchess advice], but many people just want to move pawn to queen 4, without having to set up a suplex.
Silva: boobies!
Zak S: My chess features the finest mud, the sexiest wrestlers, and a chess set so exquisite that human eyes cannot perceive it. [mic drop]

deaddmwalking · Post by **deaddmwalking** » Mon Dec 09, 2013 11:49 pm

Zak S wrote:
This whole stupid conversation began with people bitching about whatever game it is they think I play.
You've become confused. Fortunately, the thread still exists so you can review how this thread started. Before you posted, nobody said anything about Zak S or your game.
You are completely wrong about a verifiable fact.

No, you're wrong. There were lots of posts before your blog was linked to by Tussock - who said 'this is good'. Then someone quoted something from your site and pointed out that 'always say yes' could be taken advantage of. You could've come over to clarify his misconception, but you didn't. You piled on additional misconceptions at every opportunity and you're still wrong if you think this thread is about your style of play being objectively wrong.

It is not about that, and it was never about that.

This site has a strong preference for 'actual rules' in the games they play, and they have some pretty compelling reasons for that. But you're part of the 'rules' crowd - or at least, you've said so constantly. Because you insist that when you make a ruling, that ruling becomes the rule from that point forward. Thus, you have a consistent ruleset - it's just nobody knows what it is until a situation has been resolved in the past.

As far as preference, I don't have any objections to your style of play. As far as whether a set of rules should be defended because, while they are bad, they can be altered to 'not suck', I don't think they should be. If you wanted to defend a set of rules by saying 'this makes a good starting point for a homebrew', I wouldn't have any issue at all. But people tend not to say that.

But whatever - if you can't be arsed to read 25 pages of inane rambling that you created, I don't really care. You've made it clear that you don't have a contribution to the discussion - you are just here to defend a persecution complex that exists solely in your own mind. But in case it helps - nobody in this thread has argued that rules-lite games are inherently inferior to rules-heavy games. The discussion has always been about rules versus MTP. More specifically, it has been about rules that pretend to be 'not Magic Tea Party', but really are just Magic Tea Party. The worst offenders for this are referred to as '* World' and includes Dungeon World and Apocalypse World. In those games, the 'rules' are just MTP, but it tries to pretend they're not. Unless you're playing that game, you're inventing the attacks against your preferred play style.

Zak S · Post by **Zak S** » Tue Dec 10, 2013 12:29 am

" Before you posted, nobody said anything about Zak S or your game."

That's a lie.

I just pointed out it's a lie, and where the evidence it's a lie is--in plain english--and you are sitting there denying it. And pretending anything you could ever say should be taken seriously after that.

WTF?

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Tue Dec 10, 2013 12:34 am

deaddmwalking wrote:You've made it clear that you don't have a contribution to the discussion - you are just here to defend a persecution complex that exists solely in your own mind. But in case it helps - nobody in this thread has argued that rules-lite games are inherently inferior to rules-heavy games. The discussion has always been about rules versus MTP. More specifically...

To be fair, I and others have attacked Zak's playstyle. More specifically, I have attacked his defense that because nobody's quit his games, his rulings are without functional flaw. That is at least an indirect attack against his gaming style, by saying there might be room for improvement or a better way of doing things. I certainly think Zak's stance on that to be at least a little arrogant.

I have in particular bristled against the "that's just your opinion, man" attitude. It discourages any form of game discussion; to the point that such I really wonder why such advocates even come here except to be wanton hypocrites & trolls. It's also way too close to tolerating FATAL & RAHOWA.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Tue Dec 10, 2013 12:53 am

Zak S wrote:" Before you posted, nobody said anything about Zak S or your game."

That's a lie.

I just pointed out it's a lie, and where the evidence it's a lie is--in plain english--and you are sitting there denying it. And pretending anything you could ever say should be taken seriously after that.

WTF?

The standard of a lie is not factual inaccuracy you liar. It knowing falsity. You have lied several times in this thread, but then again, no one takes anything you say seriously anymore, so... Whatever.

But it is obviously very clear that he didn't reread the first page and instead went of his memory and his knowledge of the purpose of the thread, IE, not to criticize rules light, or rulings, but specifically MTP that claims it is better than rules, and the fact that no one said your gaming style was badwrongfun before you showed up.

He was slightly inaccurate and/or hyperbolic (remember in poetry and/or literature when they taught you that and you flipped the fuck out and said that all poets are liars who need to die? Those were good times) which resulted in you flipping your shit about a slight inaccuracy that has no bearing on the point being made.

Sakuya Izayoi · Post by **Sakuya Izayoi** » Tue Dec 10, 2013 1:25 am

Cyberzombie wrote:
virgil wrote: Are you seriously trying to equate disagreements over game design philosophy with racism?
Yes.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Tue Dec 10, 2013 2:24 am

virgil wrote:To be fair,

To be double fair...

Zak seems to now be pulling "It was a personal attack on my game specifically since the very beginning!"

Which I find odd since I specifically remember a point mid thread where he misunderstood something I said and responded to it thinking I was talking about his game specifically (which at the time I was not).

And he was puzzled by that and couldn't understand why talking about his game specifically would be relevant to the discussion.

gamerGoyf · Post by **gamerGoyf** » Tue Dec 10, 2013 2:42 am

Zak S wrote:If it's a game you don't consider "functional" yet people manage to play with it anyway and some of them have fun it's (for you and you only) a "gaming making tool". There are apparently many groups that only want or need "game-making tools".

Though I'm sure I'll be regretting it shortly, I'll address what appears to be the latest iteration of your "argument". Essentially you seem to have drifted into Cheetoism, all the matters is that people are having fun and since people are (anecdotally) having fun then clearly the problem is with the people complaining.

You're not making a subtle or nuanced argument, you're just being an idiot. "That's just your opinion man" is acceptable when people disagree with you about what ice cream flavor is the best, it is not acceptable when we're trying to figure out how to make a oven that doesn't explode. Ovens are tools for cooking food if your oven doesn't cook food and instead explodes than your oven is not doing it's job, it is objectively bad a being an oven. TTRPGs are much the same, Rules exist for purpose, they can be judged on whether or not they are serving design goals. A rulings based system serves most if not all recognized design goals poorly.

Cyberzombie · Post by **Cyberzombie** » Tue Dec 10, 2013 3:52 am

gamerGoyf wrote: You're not making a subtle or nuanced argument, you're just being an idiot. "That's just your opinion man" is acceptable when people disagree with you about what ice cream flavor is the best, it is not acceptable when we're trying to figure out how to make a oven that doesn't explode. Ovens are tools for cooking food if your oven doesn't cook food and instead explodes than your oven is not doing it's job, it is objectively bad a being an oven. TTRPGs are much the same, Rules exist for purpose, they can be judged on whether or not they are serving design goals. A rulings based system serves most if not all recognized design goals poorly.

Rules-lite games don't self-destruct. They run just fine in the hands of the right DM.

fectin · Post by **fectin** » Tue Dec 10, 2013 4:00 am

Dude, just rest on your trolling laurels.

rampaging-poet · Post by **rampaging-poet** » Tue Dec 10, 2013 4:36 am

Nothing you've quoted says that rules-light games are bad. The few rules that a rule-light game does have exist for a purpose: to resolve conflicts between players and encourage actions that are reasonable for the characters. Rules are bad iff they do not meet the design goals of the system, and having more rules is not always the best way to meet the design goals.

If an RPG has rules that meet its design goals, but you do not agree with those design goals, it is fine to use alternative rules that fit your table and your game better. That does not imply that not including those rules to begin with would make the RPG fulfil its design goals better. Similarly, the rulings you replace the actual rule with don't magically make the RPG succeed at its design goals if the actual rules failed at them.

Furthermore, as deaddmwalking stated earlier this page (as well as farther upthread), if your rulings are consistent once used it just means you are creating a system of rules as things come up.

Disclaimer: Every game I have ever run or played in has used the following system when there is a dispute in the rules or the exact rule is not known. The DM creates a provisional ruling which lasts until the end of the session or until the actual rule is found. In the case of a rules dispute or rule not found during the session, further arguments and citations take place at the end of the session to reach a consistent rule for further sessions.