Your Rule Sucks: The Zak S Social Currency Edition

[Zak S]

You specifically are asking here whether a given set of rules might be better suited for the tastes and capabilities of a given audience than other rules; the situation is nebulous enough I'll say yes.

16. So it's possible that a rule I write assumes an audience with different tastes and capabilities than PhoneLobster and therefore succeeds, just not with PhoneLobster? (Note I'm not yet claiming this rule does that, merely asking if that is even a theoretical possibility in your worldview.)

13. I suspect you are not saying a rule could never have too much detail, so at what point exactly do you know it has too much?

...
From a design standpoint, it's a matter of "does this detail add value?" vs. "does this make the rule too difficult to understand?" That's a tricky balance, and generally happens when you've got too many edge cases or exceptions creeping in.

Long story short, I don't think I can exactly say where the too detailed/complex point is on any rule.

17. So, at least theoretically, two different audiences could have a separate threshold for "burdensome level of complexity"?

14. "two swordsmen get *ready for an epic duel* and immediately set to throwing aside the swords they've painfully mastered over years to Do you grasp that the desire for an "epic duel" is a taste issue?

Absolutely.

Do you grasp that writing a rule that gives a mechanical advantage to players to avoid epic duels won't fit the style for players and groups that would like to play an epic duel?

Of course, but as you already pointed out: You will never again claim that I am stupid enough to think my group is representative (you have agreed to that) and…

16. Do you accept that different people have different expectations, aesthetically?

Yep.

18. Is this not proof there are D&D people who, at least on this swordfight issue, have mutually-exclusive rules needs in order to get the aesthetics of the kind of combat they want here?

[Zak S]

"You didn't read PhoneLobsters mind, therefore you failed.

I notice you didn't ask PL questions for clarification. You should have done that. So, you either fail by our standards as we've stated, or yours where you made assumptions by what people mean and went to name-calling instead of politely asking for details to understand what they meant

You have to ask for clarification before assuming something insulting about the interlocutor, not before parsing any English sentence.

(Every time I say something insulting here, I can back it up with something they previously did that was over the line. It is important to be fair.)

I gave a rule based on what I understood (i freely admit I could have been mistaken) and then rather than going "Oh, I'm sorry, I needed a rule to also include x, y, z features you had no way of knowing about at all, ever, in the world" I was attacked (insulting assumption) for not meeting invisible goalposts.

[rampaging-poet]

Ok, so the fire rule is:
-you have to look up a living creature's save to see if it goes out
(this would be a burden for some groups--mine included)

The rule for a fireball is that you have to look up a living creature's save to see how much damage it takes. You'd also have to look up its HP to see if that was enough to kill it or knock it unconscious. If doing that is too much of a burden for a creature on fire, how is it different for fireball? If looking up saves and HP is too cumbersome to your group, why have any stats for creatures at all?

-throwing more oil on the target doesn't do more damage
(I consider that a broken outcome--if I got 5 oils on me I'm going up faster per round than if I got 1)

There are two ways to handle that. First, thrown flaming oil works like alchemist's fire and explicitly burns away in one round, so you could extend the duration if there is more oil to burn. Seconds, applying a large amount of oil all at once could be considered a Large size flask of oil, in which case the damage would be scaled up according to the weapon sizing chart. The rules for how oil burns given in the entry for oil clearly override the rules for how objects in general burn because of the primary source rule - oil is the primary source for how oil acts.

I freely admit that the use of either rule in this case would be a house rule. The RAW doesn't saw what happens when excessively large amounts of oil are used. However, either would be a generalization of other rules that already exist. It's a ruling that gets consistency with the rest of the rules for free. Knowing either also allows players to predict what would happen if they used 100 oil flasks instead of 5 without having to make even more rulings.

-a single untended torch on a building in moderate weather will start a fire that will never (not usually, not sometimes, but never go out)
(I consider that a highly dubious, if not broken, result)

How is it dubious that things on fire burn until there's nothing left but ash? How often have you seen a burning log extinguish itself in calm weather? Fire is by definition a self-sustaining exothermic reaction

[Zak S]

OK, I'm curious. What rule do you use for setting a giant on fire? For putting someone out if a player catches fire? If it's not "make a Reflex Save or find water" what do you use?

This is not the whole tissue of rules, of course, this is just the important stuff (you can ask for other details and I'll provide them):

Putting out fires on purpose rules are comparable but not identical to what you'd expect.
Untended fires are rolled for damage on d6s--each time you roll a 6 or 1 that d6 of the fire goes out (most fires involve more than one d6 going at any moment)
For each extra flask of oil or torch=another d6.

So, yes, high-reflex (or high level) creatures who don't actively try to put out fires and keep fighting will burn just as fast as low level ones. You may consider that a bad outcome. I consider more oil not causing more damage a bad outcome (and a situation that'd comes up a lot). It's a good thing different people play with different rules.

[Zak S]

Ok, so the fire rule is:
-you have to look up a living creature's save to see if it goes out
(this would be a burden for some groups--mine included)

The rule for a fireball is that you have to look up a living creature's save to see how much damage it takes. You'd also have to look up its HP to see if that was enough to kill it or knock it unconscious. If doing that is too much of a burden for a creature on fire, how is it different for fireball? If looking up saves and HP is too cumbersome to your group, why have any stats for creatures at all?

"If you're ok with this pickle costing a dollar, WHY AREN'T YOU OK WITH IT COSTING 50000$"?

[Scrivener]

Did you mean something along these lines- People have different morals and ethics, some items or actions would be considered too taboo regardless as to what prior actions or services were rendered?

Not only did I mean that: I said it when I referred to the alignment system.

That's already in the game, so I don't need to write it into my rule. So it's totally fucked up that you claimed my rule would make everyone in the game a prostitute.

While alignment is in the game you have on many occasions stated that you have house rules and you have said that resources like the SRD are representative of your game. I did not want to put words in your mouth.

Now to the nitty gritty-

You can ask the chaotic evil guy to kill a lone innocent stranger in their bed as a requested service. You can't ask a lawful good one to do that.

I'm going to assume instead of ask you meant "reasonably expect," if not your interpretation of alignment will have to be explained.

Please tell me when I make a logical misstep here
1- NPCs act in a certain way as determined by their personality and alignment
2- PCs sometimes wish to adjust this behavior
3- In order to adjust the behavior of NPCs players use social rolls
4- Charisma is used in social rolls
5- a successful social roll can cause an NPC to act in a way that is contrary to their personality or alignment (a greedy NE shopkeeper can be convinced to give money to a charity, or a fastidious LN guard might let a prisoner free, and so on)
6- your system allows use of gifts or services to impact social rolls

Therefore you can use gifts to cause someone to perform actions they normally would not.

I imagine that you will complain about point 5, and likely say "but some people will never do action X." Then my question is why are there even rolls or a system for social currency? If the actions of NPCs are limited to these few DM approved actions, regardless of the actions or rolls made by the PCs how is your rule different from magic tea party?

[wotmaniac]

A creature/object burns until it is out of hit points. That was stated in the original example.

You see, hit points are a complete abstraction.
When I stab you until all your hit points fall out (mechanically speaking), then (narratively speaking) I've caused significant blood loss and/or vital organ damage to the point that your life can no longer be sustained. When I bash the door until all of its hit points fall off, I've damaged the structural integrity of the door to the point that it can no longer serve as an obstacle.
Sooooo, when something/one is on fire, once all their hit points have burned off, that means that all of their consumable material has been consumed -- and thus are reduced to not but ash. And as we know from the Fire Triangle, if there is no fuel, there is no fire. So, the fire goes out when there are no more available hit point on which to feed.

edit:
As to the "more oil" issue -- no, pouring more oil on a thing doesn't necessarily make a thing burn faster. A given material raised to a given temperature over a given area burns at a given rate. Adding even more oil doesn't increase the burn rate of the given object, because of saturation points (and that only works because a very long physics explanation). When you add even more oil, only the oil is burning, and doesn't further damage the object in question. Have you ever poured lighter fluid on your skin and then lit it? Notice that you are not on fire -- the fluid is. and then it goes out once the fluid burns off.

[rampaging-poet]

Ok, so the fire rule is:
-you have to look up a living creature's save to see if it goes out
(this would be a burden for some groups--mine included)

The rule for a fireball is that you have to look up a living creature's save to see how much damage it takes. You'd also have to look up its HP to see if that was enough to kill it or knock it unconscious. If doing that is too much of a burden for a creature on fire, how is it different for fireball? If looking up saves and HP is too cumbersome to your group, why have any stats for creatures at all?

"If you're ok with this pickle costing a dollar, WHY AREN'T YOU OK WITH IT COSTING 50000$"?

No, if you are ok with this pickle costing a dollar, why aren't you ok with it costing $1? The time taken to look up a creature's saves is the same regardless of whether the creature is set on fire or hit by a fireball spell.

EDIT: Basically, if looking up stats takes too long in the case of a fireball, it probably takes too long in almost every circumstance. Therefore anything that takes the same amount of time as the fireball - an expected action in combat - takes too long for combat. Therefore looking up stats takes too long for combat. Therefore stats have no bearing on combat. Therefore there is no point in having them.

[Grek]

Putting out fires on purpose rules are comparable but not identical to what you'd expect.
Untended fires are rolled for damage on d6s--each time you roll a 6 or 1 that d6 of the fire goes out (most fires involve more than one d6 going at any moment)
For each extra flask of oil or torch=another d6.

If a fire goes out on a 1 or a 6, than means an unattended fireplace in a empty room burns itself out in an average of 18 seconds per d6 of fire damage it would do if you stood in it. Even if you have fires go out only on a 1, that's still only lasting 36 seconds per d6 of fire. So unless fires do an ungodly amount of damage (which obviously presents its own problems), they're burning themselves out much too quickly.

[Zak S]

I'm going to assume instead of ask you meant "reasonably expect," if not your interpretation of alignment will have to be explained.

Please tell me when I make a logical misstep here
1- NPCs act in a certain way as determined by their personality and alignment
2- PCs sometimes wish to adjust this behavior

Here's your misstep, it should be:

1- NPCs have a certain range of possible behaviors as determined by their personality and alignment

2- At any given moment, NPCs are only participating in a small spectrum of the behaviors they are capable of participating in, due to the situation

3- PCs sometimes wish to get them to do different things within this range

4- PCs sometimes wish to get them to do things that aren't within this range

5- In order to do 3, players use social rolls (or other stuff)

6-In order to do 4, players can use magic

7- Charisma is used in social rolls

8- a successful social roll can't cause an NPC to act in a way that is contrary to their personality or alignment

9- My system allows use of gifts or services to impact social rolls

Therefore you cannot use gifts to cause someone to perform actions outside their range of available behaviors. That's what magic's for.

[Zak S]

Putting out fires on purpose rules are comparable but not identical to what you'd expect.
Untended fires are rolled for damage on d6s--each time you roll a 6 or 1 that d6 of the fire goes out (most fires involve more than one d6 going at any moment)
For each extra flask of oil or torch=another d6.

If a fire goes out on a 1 or a 6, than means an unattended fireplace in a empty room burns itself out in an average of 18 seconds per d6 of fire damage it would do if you stood in it. Even if you have fires go out only on a 1, that's still only lasting 36 seconds per d6 of fire. So unless fires do an ungodly amount of damage (which obviously presents its own problems), they're burning themselves out much too quickly.

Yep. Funny thing though: that never comes up in a game--fireplaces just burn outside the rules and nobody cares. Whereas the things I was talking about do come up in games all the time. (At least ones I've seen.)

Now one advantage of the RAW way (or modifications to it described above) is it's all consistent with the surrounding system and not an exception to it. This makes it easier for some people to learn and remember and use (not me: but some people, I guess.)

One advantage of my way is it's shorter and requires less looking stuff up. This makes it easier for other people to learn and remember and use (like everybody who uses it.) And takes what would normally be a less-spotlit activity in combat (burning monsters continuing to burn) and makes it less detailed and time-consuming by folding chance-of-going-out and damage into one roll.

Different people--processing the information differently--will weigh those differently.

If you want to go "Well most people…" then you get into the Left Handed Scissors argument whereby Left Handed scissors suck and are inferior and shouldn't be sold because they are useful only to a minority.

[Scrivener]

4- PCs sometimes wish to get them to do things that aren't within this range

6-In order to do 4, players can use magic

7- Charisma is used in social rolls

8- a successful social roll can't cause an NPC to act in a way that is contrary to their personality or alignment

9- My system allows use of gifts or services to impact social rolls

Therefore you cannot use gifts to cause someone to perform actions they normally would not.

Then I am confused as to what your social system actually does.

In your system you cannot use social rolls to make someone "perform actions they normally would not." You cannot talk the guard into letting you sneak in, you cannot talk the banker into letting pay late, you cannot get anyone to do anything they weren't already going to do!

How has your rule succeeded in modeling social currency when you cannot use your influence to influence anything?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but as I see it NPCs will act how the DM has decided regardless as to the rolls made by the PCs and the bonuses accrued. Could you tell me in what way having a bonus from your system helps adjust the actions of an NPC?

Is it just that NPCs have invisible and unflinching moral lines? That would solve the whore issue, but opens up the problem of social rolls having no real effect on the game, and corruption and redemption become impossible.

[wotmaniac]

This algorithm assumes a stupifyingly simplistic of human motivation and behavior.

I've never killed anyone in my entire life -- it just something I don't do. I find such behavior to be unacceptable and abhorrent. My personality and/or alignment simply does not allow for that kind of activity.
However, with a big enough reward (accompanied by sufficient mitigation of risks), I'd probably do it.

Point being, no matter someone's personality, morals, and ethics, "everybody has a price". You don't have to use magic to make a nun punch a baby -- you simply have to offer what they perceive as a big enough reward.

edit:
Oh yeah, and what Scrivener said.

[Zak S]

4- PCs sometimes wish to get them to do things that aren't within this range

6-In order to do 4, players can use magic

7- Charisma is used in social rolls

8- a successful social roll can't cause an NPC to act in a way that is contrary to their personality or alignment

9- My system allows use of gifts or services to impact social rolls

Therefore you cannot use gifts to cause someone to perform actions they normally would not.

Then I am confused as to what your social system actually does.

In your system you cannot use social rolls to make someone "perform actions they normally would not." You cannot talk the guard into letting you sneak in, you cannot talk the banker into letting pay late,

Those things are within their range of actions.

you cannot get anyone to do anything they weren't already going to do!

Silly and incorrect. Just because an employer could hire you or the next guy doesn't mean he is going to hire you and the next guy. Just because you can order pizza or a burger for lunch doesn't mean you are going to do both and especially not exactly when some random elf when someone wants you to.

Don't troll.

[Zak S]

This algorithm assumes a stupifyingly simplistic of human motivation and behavior.

I've never killed anyone in my entire life -- it just something I don't do. I find such behavior to be unacceptable and abhorrent. My personality and/or alignment simply does not allow for that kind of activity.
However, with a big enough reward (accompanied by sufficient mitigation of risks), I'd probably do it.

Point being, no matter someone's personality, morals, and ethics, "everybody has a price". You don't have to use magic to make a nun punch a baby -- you simply have to offer what they perceive as a big enough reward.

1. It doesn't have to be realistic,it just has to work in a game
2. Even if it was: you're basically arguing that dumbass' interpretation of my rule is correct and that even then, my rule perfectly models human behavior. In other words: he says my rule makes everyone a whore and you're saying "Whoa that's true, everyone is a whore, good rule".

Whatever makes you happy, guy.

[wotmaniac]

1. It doesn't have to be realistic,it just has to work in a game

If your game can't even pretend to be bothered with trying to have some sort of casual realism, then your game is categorically stupid, and you should feel bad about yourself for playing it.

2. Even if it was: you're basically arguing that dumbass' interpretation of my rule is correct and that even then, my rule perfectly models human behavior. In other words: he says my rule makes everyone a whore and you're saying "Whoa that's true, everyone is a whore, good rule".

Whatever makes you happy, guy.

THIS IS WHAT YOUR RULE FUCKING DOES!!!! AND THAT'S GIVING YOU THE BENEFIT OF SAYING THAT IT DOES ANYTHING AT ALL -- WHICH IT DOESN'T!!!






Whatever, jagoff.

[Ancient History]

16. So it's possible that a rule I write assumes an audience with different tastes and capabilities than PhoneLobster and therefore succeeds, just not with PhoneLobster? (Note I'm not yet claiming this rule does that, merely asking if that is even a theoretical possibility in your worldview.)

Success for a rule is not a matter of whether or not it is functional or a good rule. WoD sold a lot of books, you could call it successful, but a lot of the rules are shit. I will agree it is absolutely possible to write a rule suitable for one setting or game that isn't suitable for another setting or game.

17. So, at least theoretically, two different audiences could have a separate threshold for "burdensome level of complexity"?

Sure.

14. "two swordsmen get *ready for an epic duel* and immediately set to throwing aside the swords they've painfully mastered over years to Do you grasp that the desire for an "epic duel" is a taste issue?

Absolutely.

Do you grasp that writing a rule that gives a mechanical advantage to players to avoid epic duels won't fit the style for players and groups that would like to play an epic duel?

Of course, but as you already pointed out: You will never again claim that I am stupid enough to think my group is representative (you have agreed to that) and…

Stop (hammer-time!) - I never claimed you were stupid, or that your group was representative. (You've said quite a few choice things about me, though.) However, the representative-ness or not of your group has nothing to do with the mechanical incentive issue. Continuing on...

16. Do you accept that different people have different expectations, aesthetically?

Yep.

18. Is this not proof there are D&D people who, at least on this swordfight issue, have mutually-exclusive rules needs in order to get the aesthetics of the kind of combat they want here?

Okay, the claim you're making here is that your easy-disarm rule was deliberately made to suit the needs and style of your group. There's a couple issues with that.

First, you didn't present it as that. Presentation is important with rules, players and gamemasters should be able to understand the purpose of the rule. A good example is the "Chunky Salsa Rule" for Shadowrun, because dropping a grenade in a confined environment will turn anyone inside into bloody chunks. So if your purpose with the easy disarm rule was to avoid epic swordfights, you probably should have made that more clear from the outset.

Second, it's a flawed mechanic. We've gone over the escalating-bonus vs. static target number thing before, but the point is that the higher in level/more bonus you get, the easier the test is going to be - until it's practically guaranteed. Same basic argument with static Diplomacy DCs in D&D d20. Now, if that is your intention it helps to make that clear in the text, but otherwise it just looks like a mistake.

Third, and this does vary by individual style and level of grognard-ness, you have people that look at the rule as an emulation - does it or does it not accurately reflect real-world practices and effects? And from that simulationist level, it fails - because most sword fights, both in real life and fiction, do not end with the master swordsmen disarming each other and continuing on with tooth and fist.

So on your individual swordfight issue, I would say no - because if that was your intent it was not clear, used a flawed mechanic, and isn't a particularly good emulation.

Now in a larger sense you can be correct - there are dozens of different combat systems in RPGs, and some of them are more suited for some types of play than others, and some are better suited for some settings and games than others. For example, the Conan d20 game has a Magic Attack Bonus, straight D&D3.+ does not. Which one is better for a given group or game depends on the style of play and the various mechanical advantages and disadvantages inherent in those two systems. To take another example, d20 Modern often hears the complaint that firearms do not work well with hitpoints - that rule makes a poor fit for that system and a gritty style of play where guns can be deadly weapons.

[/edit]Bloody nested quotes.

[Grek]

Ok, let's address a different but related flaw in that rule: "For each extra flask of oil or torch=another d6."

A pint of oil costs 1sp and weighs 1lb. A hogshead of oil costs 50gp, weighs 500lbs and will kill most creatures dead in a horrifying conflagration of oil. A hero looking to kill a dragon doesn't go to the blacksmith for a new sword, he goes to the chandler's for a refill on lamp oil. It's incredibly stupid.

[angelfromanotherpin]

Ok, let's address a different but related flaw in that rule: "For each extra flask of oil or torch=another d6."

Zak's nonsense does seem to tend towards a kind of low-scale arithmetic thinking. There's no sense of diminishing returns at all.

[Scrivener]

you cannot get anyone to do anything they weren't already going to do!

Silly and incorrect.

Don't troll.

Therefore you cannot use gifts to cause someone to perform actions they normally would not.

I am not twisting your words, I am not inferring anything. This is how you chose to clarify your rules to me. If you would like to adjust this stance please do.

[quote="Zak S]Just because an employer could hire you or the next guy doesn't mean he is going to hire you and the next guy. Just because you can order pizza or a burger for lunch doesn't mean you are going to do both and especially not exactly when some random elf when someone wants you to.[/quote]
So you can only influence details of their actions? You still can't talk a guard into turning a blind eye when you talk to the political prisoner. Or are we in a nebulous where does it end situation? If you go to dinner with Joe you can influence what he has, can you influence who pays? What time? Can you negotiate price with a shopkeeper? Up to a 100% off discount? Can you convince a policeman into sleeping on the job because he was going to sleep anyway?

I'm confused as to what constitutes "an action a NPC was going to take," could you clarify what is and isn't included and how a player can expect to know or find out?

[Gnorman]

Ok, let's address a different but related flaw in that rule: "For each extra flask of oil or torch=another d6."

A pint of oil costs 1sp and weighs 1lb. A hogshead of oil costs 50gp, weighs 500lbs and will kill most creatures dead in a horrifying conflagration of oil. A hero looking to kill a dragon doesn't go to the blacksmith for a new sword, he goes to the chandler's for a refill on lamp oil. It's incredibly stupid.

Or he lashes twenty torches together and uses them as a melee weapon for 20d6 fire damage.

[Zak S]

Ok, let's address a different but related flaw in that rule: "For each extra flask of oil or torch=another d6."

A pint of oil costs 1sp and weighs 1lb. A hogshead of oil costs 50gp, weighs 500lbs and will kill most creatures dead in a horrifying conflagration of oil. A hero looking to kill a dragon doesn't go to the blacksmith for a new sword, he goes to the chandler's for a refill on lamp oil. It's incredibly stupid.

You can't generally throw them all in one round unless you set a trap. Plus you can't go carrying around 50lbs of stuff in addition to your other equipment. (There's another house rule this interacts with, it keeps going). Plus then you're bizarrely assuming the dragon has nobody else he makes you fight first. Plus you gotta light it--so that's a round. Plus it's dangerous to carry around. Plus you're probably assuming nobody's using the oil for, like torches or lamps (which they might not if there was a light spell).

In practice, even oil maniacs (of which there are a great many in Old School gaming) haven't been able to fulfill your infernal dreams of a burning universe, and they try several times every week.

[wotmaniac]

Zak -- fucking learn how to use tags!!!

[PhoneLobster]

You have to ask for clarification before assuming something insulting about the interlocutor, not before parsing any English sentence.

That is flat out not the position you have held in the past on your endless demands people ask for clarification because of course the rule is perfect they just need to read your mind harder/ask more.

If we don't need to ask your special clarification permission before parsing an English sentence and judging it's meaning your proposed rule failed on not even parsing as fucking functional English sentences (let alone functional rules).

Seriously. I once again point out "next charisma rolls for a month". Under your latest goal post shift on clarifications. I don't need to ask for clarification, I can just declare it parses as a piece of shit.

But as usual your hand wringing demands on how arguments and judgements must be made, as with your training wheel insults vs your "all game styles are equal" demands are ALWAYS hypocritical and two faced. You are ALWAYS about demanding everyone else be polite to you, judge your game style however insane as "fine" and always politely beg you for clarifications so that the stupid things you say sound less stupid. And then the next second you turn around and break all your own rules towards everyone else. Every. Damn. Time.

[Zak S]

You have to ask for clarification before assuming something insulting about the interlocutor, not before parsing any English sentence.

That is flat out not the position you have held in the past on your endless demands people ask for clarification because of course the rule is perfect they just need to read your mind harder/ask more.

Quote me.