Your Rule Sucks: The Zak S Social Currency Edition

[OgreBattle]

You asked for it, Shit-for-Brains:

What mean name has Ancient History called you to warrant that response?

[wotmaniac]

Dude, European settlers were able to procure huge swaths of land for literally nothing more than shiny beads and pox-laden blankets (which, btw, wouldn't be accepted back for much of anything). This is a RL example of "apple a day for a kingdom" (granted, it was incremental, and there's a whole lot more to the story; but the basic elements are still there).

That does not mean that in the presumed baseline D&D setting you regularly have people who have such a different concept of land ownership that this would be possible. If you want to shift baseline setting assumptions, then you could go "Gee why couldn't the first peasant the party meets at first level have so many hundreds of thousands of GP on them that they level up immediately and then use the excess GP to buy an army and use that to level up and…" or "OMG! What if in this setting low level monsters had lots of treasure and magic items and high level monsters had none!" or "WHAT IF THE MONSTERS HAD SUCH A DIFFERENT IDEA OF PROPERTY THAN YOU THAT THEY JUST GAVE YOU ALL THEIR GOLD IMMEDIATELY???" etc.

Now you're just making shit up out of thin air.
Sure, maybe you're using the "'I'm a little tea pot' dance" economy .... but that has jack-all fuck to do with anything.

So your historical precedent has little to do with "Does Zak's rule asked what dipshit asked him to do?"

But it has everything to do with demonstrating your flawed premise.

Diplomancer is a thing (and in multiple systems, no less) -- and it is well documented why that shit is undesirable.

Appeal to absent authority. Try harder. Again: address the contrast with the Charm spell--which is generally more powerful.

1) No, this was demonstrating what happens (exactly and literally) with a rule like what you have proposed.
2) I don't give a fuck about Charm -- you've proposed a Diplomacy-like system that is no better than the already-fucked-to-hell social systems already out there. Charm isn't even in this.

No, good rules give you a clear, objective input→output relationships (and, as such, require no adjudication ..... more to the point, they're self-adjudicating). There are PLENTY of rules that do this.

How desperately vague. Give us a rule that can't be broken by stress as extreme as (your above example) "change the assumptions of the game so the people who distribute kingdoms are so generous with the xp-granting material in the game that it is any players' basically for the asking". Give us that rule now.

Pay attention -- the opposite of "clear, objective" is "murky, subjective" ..... which is what you've given us.

This isn't my house rule, it's the rule in all games I play regularly.

[Zak S]

But it has everything to do with demonstrating your flawed premise.

Nope: in the economy in the D&D setting (which is what we're discussing: a game), people don't just give away land for trinkets just like monsters aren't generous guys who immediately give adventureres huge sums of xp-granting gold on sight. So: you're lying or mistaken.

wotmaniac:

Diplomancer is a thing (and in multiple systems, no less) -- and it is well documented why that shit is undesirable.

zak responds:

Appeal to absent authority. Try harder. Again: address the contrast with the Charm spell--which is generally more powerful.

wotmaniac responds vaguely and bafflingly:

1) No, this was demonstrating what happens (exactly and literally) with a rule like what you have proposed.

Where? Quote that thing. Nobody in the thread has provided an example of this.

wotmaniac:

2) I don't give a fuck about Charm -- you've proposed a Diplomacy-like system that is no better than the already-fucked-to-hell social systems already out there. Charm isn't even in this.

That is just repeating what you already said "Some allegedly equivalent rule somewhere is wrong so you're allegedly similar rule is". We just covered the problem with that.

wotmaniac:

No, good rules give you a clear, objective input→output relationships (and, as such, require no adjudication ..... more to the point, they're self-adjudicating). There are PLENTY of rules that do this.

Zak:

How desperately vague. Give us a rule that can't be broken by stress as extreme as (your above example) "change the assumptions of the game so the people who distribute kingdoms are so generous with the xp-granting material in the game that it is any players' basically for the asking". Give us that rule now.

wotmaniac:

Pay attention -- the opposite of "clear, objective" is "murky, subjective" ..... which is what you've given us.

#1: You dishonestly dodged the issue--you claimed to know RPG rules that couldn't be ruined by poor adjudication and insane stress and then can't provide an example.

#2: To repeat this for the THIRD TIME IN TWO PAGES (again: how stupid do you have to be to not even notice the refutation of your point?)

The charge leveled against me (which I was responding to) resulting in the challenge was not "Oh Zak, you're so bad at explaining things to people who are completely hostile to you, know each other better than you, and very stupid" the charge was that I couldn't design a rule that worked quickly.

I claimed at the time, and I re-claim now that I was not pretending to write a rule for publication. Folks are focusing on their real or pretended incomprehension because it is the only way to explain their previous incredulity at the rule that doesn't make them sound as stupid as they are.

Since I can--and have--countered all the objections to the actual rule itself (that is: the actual behavior at the table I describe) and people are sitting there going …."Ok, wait, that does make sense now you explain it…." the only way to save face is say their earlier scorn was based on "Oh I didn't understand because you're so bad at writing" (not because insane rancor and stupidity blinded me to a perfectly usable rule).

While this does shift the fault for their not knowing what they're on about back to me, it asks me to defend a position I have not taken up--that I am great at communicating with bad morons. I am not that thing, by a long shot, and have never pretended to be. I simply am a guy who--like nearly every GM I have ever played with--can make up a rule that works, and clarify it when asked.

That is the thing I was asked to do. That is the thing I did. That is the thing I can defend.

So, every point wotmaniac just made turns out to be wrong immediately. Again, is wotmaniac just incredibly incrediby stupid beyond anyone you meet in daily life ("2 tickets please" Wotmaniac: "Tickets don't exist!" "There's a ticket, there's a whole roll" Wotmaniac: "Tickets don't exist OMG you're so stupid and frustrating look at this gif!!!!") ?

[Gnorman]

Again because you're stupid: Re-read-- I wasn't asked to give an edition-specific rule.

The charge leveled against me (which I was responding to) resulting in the challenge was not "Oh Zak, you're so bad at explaining things to people who are completely hostile to you, know each other better than you, and very stupid" the charge was that I couldn't design a rule that worked quickly.

Don't skip over clarifications I already made just because you're too stupid to remember them.

#2: To repeat this for the THIRD TIME IN TWO PAGES (again: how stupid do you have to be to not even notice the refutation of your point?)

So, every point wotmaniac just made turns out to be wrong immediately. Again, is wotmaniac just incredibly incrediby stupid beyond anyone you meet in daily life

Logical fallacy. Ad hominem. Look, I can regurgitate Wikipedia articles too.

[Zak S]

Again because you're stupid: Re-read-- I wasn't asked to give an edition-specific rule.

The charge leveled against me (which I was responding to) resulting in the challenge was not "Oh Zak, you're so bad at explaining things to people who are completely hostile to you, know each other better than you, and very stupid" the charge was that I couldn't design a rule that worked quickly.

Don't skip over clarifications I already made just because you're too stupid to remember them.

#2: To repeat this for the THIRD TIME IN TWO PAGES (again: how stupid do you have to be to not even notice the refutation of your point?)

So, every point wotmaniac just made turns out to be wrong immediately. Again, is wotmaniac just incredibly incrediby stupid beyond anyone you meet in daily life

Logical fallacy. Ad hominem.

Incorrect: simply because I point out--while saying something rational and supported--that the person I'm talking to is a moron, that does not mean that the argument I'm using is an ad hominem.

For example "You can't say there are definitely no ants in your house simply on the grounds that you haven't seen any because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, you fucking jackass" is not an ad hominem argument. Idiot.

[Gnorman]

Incorrect: simply because I point out--while saying something rational and supported--that the person I'm talking to is a moron, that does not mean that the argument I'm using is an ad hominem.

For example "You can't say there are definitely no ants in your house simply on the grounds that you haven't seen any because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, you fucking jackass" is not an ad hominem argument. Idiot.

Disagree with central premise. Fail to see rationality or support in your arguments.

[Username17]

This isn't my house rule, it's the rule in all games I play regularly.

I had thought that Zak had fallen as far as it was possible to go into self parody as an arrogant internet toughguy. But I will freely admit I was wrong. This is the most unselfaware thing I have ever seen posted on this site.

I freely admit to having been skimming. Has he threatened us with his IRL martial arts yet?

-Username17

[Zak S]

Incorrect: simply because I point out--while saying something rational and supported--that the person I'm talking to is a moron, that does not mean that the argument I'm using is an ad hominem.

For example "You can't say there are definitely no ants in your house simply on the grounds that you haven't seen any because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, you fucking jackass" is not an ad hominem argument. Idiot.

Disagree with central premise. Fail to see rationality or support in your arguments.

Then the thing to do is to quote one and then describe the problem that you have with the argument.

[Zak S]

This isn't my house rule, it's the rule in all games I play regularly.

I had thought that Zak had fallen as far as it was possible to go into self parody as an arrogant internet toughguy. But I will freely admit I was wrong. This is the most unselfaware thing I have ever seen posted on this site.

I freely admit to having been skimming. Has he threatened us with his IRL martial arts yet?

-Username17

Frank: you're saying you're actually too dumb to see the difference between "my house rules" (rules I made up) and "rules other GMs I play with made up and/or use". That's deeply stupid, Frank.

This is, by the way, the last thing Frank said of substance on this rule:

Frank: "Your rule is stupid, Zak, it looks like it wouldn't reward altruism"

Zak: "No, Frank, here's an example with that happening, very clearly"

Frank: (says fuck all)

So his credibility is shot.

[Gnorman]

This isn't my house rule, it's the rule in all games I play regularly.

I had thought that Zak had fallen as far as it was possible to go into self parody as an arrogant internet toughguy. But I will freely admit I was wrong. This is the most unselfaware thing I have ever seen posted on this site.

I freely admit to having been skimming. Has he threatened us with his IRL martial arts yet?

-Username17

Frank: you're saying you're actually too dumb to see the difference between "my house rules" (rules I made up) and "rules other GMs I play with made up and/or use". That's deeply stupid, Frank.

It's actually not at all. If I adopt a rule someone else made up for use at my table, it's part of my "house rules." I don't have to invent it for it to be considered one, and you didn't specify your idiosyncratic meaning. So, in essence, you were criticized for assuming that one of your "house rules" is an actual rule, and you defended it by saying "Hey guys, it's not a house rule, it's just a different thing that fits the exact definition of house rule."

The terminological failure is your own.

[Zak S]

I had thought that Zak had fallen as far as it was possible to go into self parody as an arrogant internet toughguy. But I will freely admit I was wrong. This is the most unselfaware thing I have ever seen posted on this site.

I freely admit to having been skimming. Has he threatened us with his IRL martial arts yet?

-Username17

Frank: you're saying you're actually too dumb to see the difference between "my house rules" (rules I made up) and "rules other GMs I play with made up and/or use". That's deeply stupid, Frank.

It's actually not at all. If I adopt a rule someone else made up for use at my table, it's part of my "house rules." So you were criticized for assuming that one of your "house rules" is an actual rule, and you defended it by saying "Hey guys, it's not a house rule, it's just a different thing that fits the exact definition of house rule."

The terminological failure is your own.

"If I adopt a rule someone else made up for use at my table, it's part of my "house rules.""

You could say that--you could say "this is my house rule I borrowed from Dave" or you could say "this is Dave's house rule and I am using it"(Dave being the inventor and thus deserving the possessive) or you could say "this is a rule lots of people and I use and I neither know nor care if it's a house or published rule". If this linguistic distinction is the entire content of your criticism, then you're splitting a hair that has fuck-all to do with anything and we're back to:

The charge leveled against me (which I was responding to) resulting in the challenge was not "Oh Zak, you're so bad at explaining things to people who are completely hostile to you, know each other better than you, and very stupid" the charge was that I couldn't design a rule that worked quickly.

I claimed at the time, and I re-claim now that I was not pretending to write a rule for publication. Folks are focusing on their real or pretended incomprehension because it is the only way to explain their previous incredulity at the rule that doesn't make them sound as stupid as they are.

Since I can--and have--countered all the objections to the actual rule itself (that is: the actual behavior at the table I describe) and people are sitting there going …."Ok, wait, that does make sense now you explain it…." the only way to save face is say their earlier scorn was based on "Oh I didn't understand because you're so bad at writing" (not because insane rancor and stupidity blinded me to a perfectly usable rule).

While this does shift the fault for their not knowing what they're on about back to me, it asks me to defend a position I have not taken up--that I am great at communicating with bad morons. I am not that thing, by a long shot, and have never pretended to be. I simply am a guy who--like nearly every GM I have ever played with--can make up a rule that works, and clarify it when asked.

That is the thing I was asked to do. That is the thing I did. That is the thing I can defend.

To return to the point where you started getting evasive:

GNORMAN

Disagree with central premise. Fail to see rationality or support in your arguments.

ZAK:

Then the thing to do is to quote one and then describe the problem that you have with the argument.

So do that.

[Gnorman]

You could say that, or you could say "this is my house rule I borrowed from Dave" or you could say "this is Dave's house rule and I am using it" or you could say "this is a rule lots of people and I use and I neither know nor care if it's a house or published rule". If this linguistic distinction if the entire content of your criticism, then you've splitting a hair that has fuck-all to do with anything

Yes, but you didn't say that. You said:

This isn't my house rule, it's the rule in all games I play regularly.

The linguistic distinction is not the entire content of my criticism; it was merely introduced to refute your levying the charge of stupidity at Frank. You claimed that he would have to be stupid not to understand the difference between "my house rules" and "rules I adopted that were invented by other GMs," despite the fact that that distinction is meaningless and you didn't specify that, in your world, "my house rules" refers to ones you came up with yourself.

Other instances of argumentative deficiencies: failing to respond to the bulk of PhoneLobster's argument (aside from calling it a strawman and then focusing on the "altruism" tangent), failing to respond to the Diplomancer point aside from making a weak accusation of fallacy, constantly changing the goalposts, generally being an arrogant shitheel.

[Zak S]

You claimed that he would have to be stupid not to understand the difference between "my house rules" and "rules I adopted that were invented by other GMs," despite the fact that that distinction is meaningless

Incorrect:
I wrote a sentence. In that sentence I clearly was using "not my house rules" in the sense of "not house rules I made up" (the sense in which the whatshisname was using it). That was clear by context. That Frank didn't catch that proves he is stupid. It is as stupid as if he thought the phrase "house rules" in this paragraph refers to building codes for houses.

Other instances of argumentative deficiencies: failing to respond to the bulk of PhoneLobster's argument

I responded to every inch of it, here it is:

Phonelobster says…

(first, a bunch of stuff about the strawman rule) then...

altruism

Already discussed:

Superman altruistically saves someone. When does he not get a bonus to their reaction?

Well when the following conditions are all secured (not just one, ALL):

-Savee 100% certain s/he will never need help from Superman again (i.e. no effect on resource).

-Savee 100% certain no-one who provides important resources to savee will ever need help from Superman (if he saves the dentist down the street, your supply of dental care is uninterrupted).

(This one is huge, by the way--in the DC Universe, the entire universe is frequently threatened. This is why often even villains see the point in having Superman around.)

-Savee 100% certain s/he will never be in a position where Superman's positive judgment of him/her would be helpful in securing or maintaining a resource (For example: Superman saves Chuck. Chuck is ungrateful. If Chuck falls off a building again, Superman will still save him. However if anybody asks altruistic Superman "is Chuck a good guy?" for any reason of any importance Superman's negative evaluation of Chuck could affect Chucks access to resources. Also now Supes may be more suspicious of Chuck in any future Chuck-related resource-gathering enterprises.)

(i.e. savee regards "Superman's trust and/or goodwill" as a useless resource)

-Savee 100% certain nobody who could ever even indirectly control (pro or con) his access to resources will ever discover his/her ingratitude.
________

So:

In this fantastically unusual situation, Superman is at the mercy of a naked reaction roll, unmodified. (I think that's about right for modeling a morality I want in my game, you don't. If not: you could nicely ask for me to model the morality you want in your game instead of being a dick about it.)

One might well ask why PhoneLobster is so stupid he missed this a…fourth time now? How does PhoneLobster get to his computer? Much less type?

when we say "fine your gratitude bonus applies super-fucking-man are you happy now?" the player playing super man can only say "yes, but what the fuck does it apply to?"... and we don't have a firm answer on how many charisma rolls are involved.

All within a period of time. that's in the rule:

Assign a given transaction a bonus and an "expiration", like "This is worth +something on your next charisma rolls for a month. How's that sound, player?"

But the depleting resource alternative...

(only relevant int he strawman rule--in the actual rule it's not depletable, merely situationally mitigatable)

Notable I think is the apple stacking business, which while perhaps implied, when Zak S was originally confronted with "you have explicit apple stacking!" his answers largely amounted to "yeah so, functioning as intended!".

FAIL. Here's the real thing, again, same page:

You mangled the remit. It was:

"you cannot accrue large amounts of incremental small pieces of currency like a gift of an apple a day and then cash them in for a kingdom."

You forget out the problem I was instructed to solve was not that you couldn't accrue merely incremental but small and incremental gifts. Also the remit was you couldn't use them to trade in for large rewards (like kingdoms) not that you couldn't trade them in for any reward (like a bonus to a charisma check).

You missed it: only currencies whose continued supply that might be threatened by refusing a given request are considered. and the baseline of these bonuses would only include the differences between bonuses of competing factions and interests.

So you can only stack apples with someone (like a horse) who sees apples as not small incremental but significant currency. Thus fitting my remit:

Quote:
However at the same time it is important that you cannot accrue large amounts of incremental small pieces of currency like a gift of an apple a day and then cash them in for a kingdom.


Because:
1. Horses don't have kingdoms to give (nor does anyone who'd regard an apple as a significant gift).

2. To the horse, the apple may not even count as a "small" piece of currency. It might be large if there were no other source of apples. (Which is part of training an animal--you get bonuses to charisma with them by providing gifts which are small to you but large to them and in exchange they give you…totally not a kingdom)

So, no, you can't trade an apple a day for a kingdom.

Again: this is on the page. How is it that PhoneLobsters so stupid he or she missed it? Could it be this complaint is disingenuous?

And to this days his defenses of apple stacking in his system are not defenses that it isn't there but rather defenses that it IS there but isn't a problem because everyone stacks apples and sometimes minimum incremental apple size is horse sized instead (as if either does anything much but make things worse).

I don't even know what you think this means. I addressed the thing you wrote not the thing you think you wrote.

You think you wrote about "apple stacking" what you wrote (again) was:

"However at the same time it is important that you cannot accrue large amounts of incremental small pieces of currency like a gift of an apple a day and then cash them in for a kingdom."

The whole point of the initial disagreement was that Zak S was, whatever his blue faced denials now may be, very clearly at the time stating he had a system of formalized precedent based rules that were generated on the spot in total perfection and NEVER came back to bite him on the ass, even though once generated directly from his ass his formal precedent based bullshit meant they were basically cast in stone forever after.

That's you straight up lying (and not making a mistake, because you've read this already) so here's the thing PhoneLobster is lying to everyone reading about right now. He says " they were basically cast in stone forever after"

NOPE! Here's my description, from the first page of the discussion of my rules:

You've misinterpreted my post and how I run my game, Archmage.

The answer is not always "Yes" and there are always times to make choices that matter.

For example:

Player: "Do I get a bonus from attacking with a sword from a horse?"
GM: "Yes, +2"
Player: "What if I want to grab the amulet?"
GM: "Well he's a short goblin running the other way so if you want the amulet this round you'll have to get off the horse. (And, of course, if you miss on your attack at +2, the goblin's probably going to go down the trap door and it'll take you longer to follow if you have to get off that horse--so how do you want to play it?)"

The keys here are:

-that +2 horse rule, once made, is like that forever. (Oh no! Is PL right? But wait…)
-the players generally have access to the rule before making a final decision, thus preserving tactical relevance of their decisions. There are (at least) two resolution mechanisms, 2 sets of odds--pick one.
-the players can appeal--and, in my local case--this never results in arguments or fights . If discussion of new rules does result in fights at your table, then maybe you need a heavier ruleset.
.

Again, ask yourself: How is it that PhoneLobster keeps missing these facts posted right in front of his face? In posts that he responds to and quotes? Is he dumb beyond any mortal yet known? Or is he just trying to cover his ass for having been so stupid and hoping that if he keeps ignoring facts they'll disappear? What is going on with PhoneLobster?

His only response contained no argument with any of these points. He just used the opportunity to point out he was talking about the dumb strawman rule rather then the actual rule (which is pointless): here it is, it has zero actual criticisms of the rule I wrote, merely references to arguments elsewhere (which were refuted) and to the strawman rule made up by deanruel87, not the actual rule:

But you utter failed to understand that the ENTIRE post was not about your system's failures to do with altruism issues and that the reference was clearly and plainly to normal English readers intended to set those failures aside and talk about some even more basic failures instead.

So you, being a total fucking moron just see one word referring to an argument you have lost repeatedly and just jump right back cancerous spamming of your ongoing claim you totally refuted that issue. Expired rancid spam which dates back well before the last five or five thousand times that people have pointed out your refutation is a pile of shit and that your altruism issues are still a big pile of smelly smelly poop.

But hey, talk about that. Whatever. My discussion of the issue in your presented rule where it is ambiguous as to how many actual charisma rolls are effected wasn't for you. It was, in a stark reversal of affairs, for the critics.

Wonderfully vivid as that is, there's no new argument against my rule in it.

So, if you can find a single solitary piece of PL's argument not proven wrong, type what that is now.

failing to respond to the Diplomancer point

Describe what "the diplomancer point" is, exactly. Because so far someone has simply referred to some thing undescribed in this thread called the "diplomancer" that alleged is related to my rule.

Whatever it is:

1. Fucking type that out.
2. Explain how any of this is more game breaking than charm, because my mechanic is basically basically:
Expend resources and possible risk your life and thereby acquire an increased chance of one person treating you as a friend each individual time you ask for the duration.
And Charm is:
Anybody failing a save vs this 1st level spell always treats you as a friend on all requests during the duration.

Unless you address that, you haven't even got a leg to stand on. You're just trolling and pretending you have some rational argument.

So rather than pretending that somewhere in this alphabet salad there's an objection I haven't tackled and crossing your fingers: type out the actual objections to the actual rule that you think stands.

[Kaelik]

Kaelik seems to be phoning it in right now.

Even Kaelik has limits to that amount of stupidity he can address. And 29 pages is approaching mine. Not to mention at this point I posted my criticism of his "rule", and he is so incapable of defending it against my criticism that he is just pretending that they don't exist. So I would have to jump in on other people's arguments. I can do that, but I care a lot less.

Though his complete inability to address my criticism might even be the reason he left the original thread, since he left never to return the same page I posted it the first time.

[Zak S]

Though his complete inability to address my criticism might even be the reason he left the original thread, since he left never to return the same page I posted it the first time.

Oh I thought everyone already knew this but since you didn't I'll let you know:

Since you admitted to trolling--openly--nothing you say matters ever. Not just while trolling, but forever. And not just on the internet, but in real life. Further: once you have decided that you will spend any part of your life trolling on the internet, you forfeit all rights as a human. If you should get hit by a car--no-one should help you. If you vote on anything--your vote should be thrown away.

If you wanted to participate in a conversation, you've lost that right. You are a non-human now. You are over and cancelled. No concern of yours can ever matter to any member of the human race ever again.

Your argument can only be addressed if someone else somewhere thinks it's valid. Until they bring it up, since you are irrelevant to all actual endeavor, we'll have to assume it isn't.

[Kaelik]

If you should get hit by a car--no-one should help you. If you vote on anything--your vote should be thrown away.

This is basically just die in a fire, can we ban him now?

[Nebuchadnezzar]

Zak S, I wouldn't be opposed to your addressing Kaelik's criticism.

[Zak S]

Zak S, I wouldn't be opposed to your addressing Kaelik's criticism.

Ok, the craziest part of what Kaelik says is at the bottom, so strap in:

So for example, what bonus does something get? Totally made up by him on the spot. How long does the bonus last? Totally made up by him on the spot.

Yes it is--the bonus is on a scale of 1-10 or 1-whatever the max bonus is in your system. The time has no upper limit. If a GM cannot be trusted to do that, the GM cannot be trusted to make a new NPC's stats, or set the DC of a new trap or make a new monster or create an interesting dungeon or do many of the other things necessary to make any game anyone I've ever met would want to play in.

In other words: a GM capable of that is as essential as dice (or moreso--since you can randomize even without dice). If you want me to create rules for a GM who can't do things like that, we are, basically, talking about 2 different games and shouldn't be having a conversation and nobody here should ever think of my blog as a place where the game they think of as "D&D" is discussed and should not ever discuss it here. We are doing a different thing for people with more skill than you presume a GM has. Consider it an alien phenomenon for folks unlike you which you need not concern yourselves with.

What about competing factions and interests that subtract from your role, what are they and how much do they subtract and do you know about them?

They get the same 1-10 or 1-maximum scale that the players get and (like everything else in the dungeon a GM builds) are placed by hand based on the context (like you decide a tailor's skills based on…they're a tailor so they probably can sew).

So (this came up in a game) a player wanted a statue of himself in the town erected by the grateful villagers after he saved them from a giant. The other factions would be other people who had prior claims on the materials or the sculptors' time. Since it was a sandbox scenario with no previous mention in the game of any such people w/ prior claims (the villagers had been busy hiding from the giant), I randomized it in that case across the entire range of possible numbers and rolled. If someone had been mentioned in the game or the scenario demanded some competing interests, then their current relationship with the sculptor and supply train would've had to have been made like any other NPC of their position and location. It is, in many ways, like adding a stat to an NPC--which people can be expected to know how to do.

What about NPCs who are sure superman is going to keep saving them, how do you decide if an NPC is sure of that? He makes that up on the spot.

Of course I don't make that up--if you had a situation where there's a question as to the NPC's judgment that's a wisdom roll.

That's not new-that's how the game already worked before the roll--quality of an NPC's judgment? Wisdom.

Keep in mind any 3.5 mechanics about divining intentions aren't in play here--I'm not writing a 3.5 rule.

Now here's the crazy part. It's in bold:

So in reality, there aren't actually any rules It is literally just MTP, but he says a bonus you get on a roll instead of telling you what the NPC does. And then after you roll, he makes up on the spot the effect of your roll.

Whether or not you want to say "there aren't any rules" (procedures? whatever) the part where I "make up on the spot the effect of your roll" AFTER THE ROLL is a pure fabrication. The bonuses are up front, the request is up front, the consequences are up front.

Making up a result after the roll is a terrible idea, I never do that, and nothing in the rule points to that. That crazy fabrication alone should remove Kaelik from consideration as any kind of honest good-faith person making any kind of good-faith argument even if he hadn't come out as a troll.
It works (in simplest form) like this:
"Here's your bonus."
"Ok"
"You need to make a charisma roll to get the statue"
"Ok"
(roll roll)
"Did it"
"Therefore I am bound by the thing I just fucking said to give you the statue"

Here's his bonus. Here's what happens--roll the dice, if you get it you get it" number needed to get your request comes before the die is rolled.

So Kaelik's thing is about as stupid as you can get and includes a bizarre fantasy he made up. Dismissed.

Now if this were any kind of sane discussion everyone would nod and go:

"Yes, the fact that Kaelik made that bit up about deciding the result after the roll is crazy. Zak, we're sorry, you really should not have to put up with that. We apologize for his behavior and will regulate on him ourselves in the future, rather than wasting your time by making you do it for us."

[sandmann]

I'm not a dick, I'm really nice.

(...) once you have decided that you will spend any part of your life trolling on the internet, you forfeit all rights as a human.If you should get hit by a car--no-one should help you. If you vote on anything--your vote should be thrown away.

If you wanted to participate in a conversation, you've lost that right. You are a non-human now. You are over and cancelled. No concern of yours can ever matter to any member of the human race ever again.

[chonz]

Can someone condense what is going on in this thread truthfully?

[Zak S]

Can someone condense what is going on in this thread truthfully?

Someone linked to something I wrote on my D&D blog http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com in a thread a while ago, but mischaracterized it. I explained myself. Some people there started arguing that the way I ran my game was bad for a wide variety of reasons which I disputed.

One rhetorical move someone made was to challenge me to quickly make up a rule that wouldn't bite me on the ass later. I did. (This is that rule in the OP). The rule has been in use in my game to this day.

People raise doubts about it which I feel I refuted and they feel--or pretend to feel--I didn't. A long time later, in threads about other things, they'd bring that conversation up as an example of how Wrong a person was like Oh You're Zak S Wrong. I didn't put up with it. So arguing ensued in those threads.

So then Ancient History decided to put the rule here with the alleged reasons it is bad. I explained why he was wrong. Other people have mounted attacks, echoing previous ones. They believe they are right for reasons unknown, I believe I am right for the reasons articulated on the last 2 pages.

P.S.
ALSO: your question "Can someone condense what is going on in this thread truthfully?" will likely be used as a straight line for a bunch of dumb jokes people are about to make. I think this is an indicator they're morons. They probably think it's an indicator they're clever people having a merry time slowing down a discussion of how a rule does or does not work.

[PhoneLobster]

So, if you can find a single solitary piece of PL's argument not proven wrong, type what that is now.

No one would want to do that. They would have to type everything I've ever said to or about you.

I'll be honest. Your total failure at this has made me feel smug, it has made me feel amused, I think it might even have made me make a funny little nasal chortling noise at least once.

But mostly it freaks me the fuck out. Every damn time I think I've grasped how dumb you are I only discover I have yet again somehow overestimated your intellect.

I am at this point unclear on how you can manage to say the things you do and yet still simultaneously operate some form of device sufficiently complex to access the internet.

It's like watching a monkey rub it's own excrement on it's head while tweeting about it.

[sandmann]

So for example, what bonus does something get? Totally made up by him on the spot. How long does the bonus last? Totally made up by him on the spot.

Yes it is--the bonus is on a scale of 1-10 or 1-whatever the max bonus is in your system. The time has no upper limit.

A) How is that any different from you just not having a rule and making things up as you go along ? How is that different from a situation bonus to a charisma roll ?

B) If that is a rule, what are your criteria for something to be a "rule" ? This is a real question, not a bait.

What about competing factions and interests that subtract from your role, what are they and how much do they subtract and do you know about them?

They get the same 1-10 or 1-maximum scale that the players get and (like everything else in the dungeon a GM builds) are placed by hand based on the context (like you decide a tailor's skills based on…they're a tailor so they probably can sew).

But what counts as a compeding faction ? If Cercei Lannister whats to have a new dress from Robert Baratheon, you could say that everyone and no-one in Kings Landing is a competing faction. There are many people in any given kingdom, all with different intentions, so taking them into account is a lot of work for one roll.

What about NPCs who are sure superman is going to keep saving them, how do you decide if an NPC is sure of that? He makes that up on the spot.

If it comes up, that's not made up, that's a wisdom roll. Obviously an NPC's ability to judge a PC's intentions or the future is a wisdom roll: that's D&D. Depending on whose GMing it could be an opposed Wis v Cha roll or a straight Wis roll. I'd do a straight Wis if it was about predicting the future and Wis v Cha if it was about guessing the PC's intention.

A) Wisdom against what ? Whats the difficulty ? Can Superman do something about that ?

B) That is not in the original rule. You can say that it is easy to make a rule based on the original system, but that doesn't change the fact that in your original post, there is nothing about wisdom rolls.

C) "Obvious" is a very dangerous word. What seems obvious to you is not at all obvious to others, and vise versa. And that is one of the big problems of your rule, that it is based a lot on "obvious" ideas and "universal" rules that are not at all obvious or universal. DND 2 and 3 afaik have no max-cap of modifiers, so that is a house rule, and the fact that everyone around you uses it doesn't stop it from being a house rule that is not in the official books. Because that is part of the definition of a house rule: Something that is not in the official books.

[chonz]

So then Ancient History decided to put the rule here with the alleged reasons it is bad. I explained why he was wrong.

Thank you.

[Username17]

Can someone condense what is going on in this thread truthfully?

Yes. On a completely different thread, Zak S made the laughable claim that writing rules down was for suckers because he could make up rules on the fly that were as good as anything that could be written in a book. PhoneLobster called him on his shit, and rather than back down, Zak S issued a challenge to himself that he could make a rule for PhoneLobster to prove that he actually was that awesome. PhoneLobster asked for a rule that was Nintendo Hard to make, and rather than back down, Zak S trotted out an unpolished turd of a rule that is, according to literally every neutral observer both incomplete and also shitty. And rather than back down, Zak S has been increasingly belligerent, posting long winded and insulting screeds against all the people who say that he in fact lost the challenge, which so far has been literally every single person who has weighed in.

TL;DR: Zak S is in the process of "flaming out." That's a process where a message board poster gets their ego bruised and proceeds to spam a message board with increasingly offensive and incomprehensible rants until the moderators get tired of them and give them a time out or ban. This board has extremely lax rules, so Zak S can probably keep spouting crazier and crazier shit for some time. Although he might have crossed the line with his awe inspiringly unselfaware rant - in the middle of one of his own troll posts - that people should IRL die if they have ever made a troll post. That is actually rather over the line even here.

-Username17