Your Rule Sucks: The Zak S Social Currency Edition

[Gnorman]

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.

"My rule is immune to your criticism because of other rules I didn't mention, and blatant assumptions about dragon minions and D&D economics."

[Zak S]

"My rule is immune to your criticism because of other rules I didn't mentioned, and blatant assumptions about dragon minions and D&D economics."

When I wanted to know the assumptions behind your oil rule I asked questions--I didn't assume you had a secret plot to hide how it works. That's what you should do. If you got a question, ask.

[PhoneLobster]

Quote me.

Quote:

7) Demand they ask clarifying questions.

If the alternative is "assume bullshit" this is definitely the appropriate course of action.

Dumb ass.

edit:

"My rule is immune to your criticism because of other rules I didn't mentioned, and blatant assumptions about dragon minions and D&D economics."

When I wanted to know the assumptions behind your oil rule I asked questions--I didn't assume you had a secret plot to hide how it works. That's what you should do. If you got a question, ask.

No really. You actually demanded a quote of your contradictory double standard on clarifications quests. THEN IMMEDIATELY GENERATED A FUCKING NEW ONE.

NO REALLY!

[Gnorman]

No, you made a baseline assumption about the rule vis-a-vis its realism - that it "crumbles like a cookie" under scrutiny because (1) more oil doesn't equal more damage (which I believe wotmaniac has ably demonstrated as bullshit), and (2) a single untended source of flame will result in a large sustained conflagration (WHICH HAPPENS ALL THE TIME, JUST LOOK AT ANY "GREAT FIRE OF X").

Dude, you are basically the Pelé of shifting goalposts and double standards.

[Zak S]

Quote me.

Quote:

7) Demand they ask clarifying questions.

If the alternative is "assume bullshit" this is definitely the appropriate course of action.

Dumb ass.

edit:

"My rule is immune to your criticism because of other rules I didn't mentioned, and blatant assumptions about dragon minions and D&D economics."

When I wanted to know the assumptions behind your oil rule I asked questions--I didn't assume you had a secret plot to hide how it works. That's what you should do. If you got a question, ask.

No really. You actually demanded a quote of your contradictory double standard on clarifications quests. THEN IMMEDIATELY GENERATED A FUCKING NEW ONE.

NO REALLY!

What are you even talking about? What even is that quote at the top from? Saying I think "My rule is immune to your criticism…." is an insulting assumption. people need to ask questions first before making it.

I even anticipated that when I laid it out:

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):

[wotmaniac]

When I wanted to know the assumptions behind your oil rule I asked questions--I didn't assume you had a secret plot to hide how it works.

Actually, that's explicitly what you did. Like, literally.:

You can't generally throw them all in one round unless you set a trap.

Super easy to do.

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).

I'm assuming, in your favor, that you meant 500lbs. And even then, this and this would like to have a talk with you.
Oh, and what is this other fucking inane houserule? My breath is fucking bated.

Plus then you're bizarrely assuming the dragon has nobody else he makes you fight first.

This assumes that his minions force you to use your oil bomb. Quick, tell me what logical fallacy that falls under?

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).

You could be getting at a couple of different things here -- either:
1) the other people that need oil put too much demand on the oil supply for you to be able to get that much oil
- 1a) which is a bullshit proposition, given how trivially easy it is to bypass supposed "scarcity"
-or-
2) you're using up all your oil for lamps and shit
- 2a) again, bullshit. If you're carrying that much oil, then the little bit you need for lamps and shit doesn't even make a dent in your supply.

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.

Well, the reason for that is twofold:
1) the universe is a pretty big place; and even if you're in a post-scarcity world (in both materials and time), simply the actual logistics of that would be pretty mind-boggling.
2) no one actually wants the universe to burn, because then there would be nowhere in which to adventure.
Just sayin'.

[Grek]

God damn it, stop quoting each other if you can't do the tags right.

[wotmaniac]

God damn it, stop quoting each other if you can't do the tags right.

I fixed right away. (well, +forum lag)
So sue me -- 1 single backslash in 3 years.

[PhoneLobster]

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

If the alternative is "assume bullshit" this is definitely the appropriate course of action.

When I wanted to know the assumptions behind your oil rule I asked questions--I didn't assume you had a secret plot to hide how it works. That's what you should do. If you got a question, ask.

Saying I think "My rule is immune to your criticism…." is an insulting assumption. people need to ask questions first before making it.

That's the two faced double standard you asshole. You are creating a "rule" you selectively enforce about how insulting you feel a certain interpretation of your rules plain English text is. YOU always feel insulted when someone says "your rule is bad because of what is says" so you petulantly demand clarifications and apologies and YOU always decide that YOUR interpretations of everyone else's stuff is not only correct but ALSO doesn't meet your "is clearly insulting" proviso no matter how many fucking insults you actually include, so you never have to ask any questions or make any apologies.

Here is the thing. Telling you your rule is broken and bad IS insulting because it FEELS insulting to you. Well. Too fucking bad. Because if we can't call your rule bad because of your tiny tender baby-man feelings then no one is ever allowed to judge any damn thing ever.

Meanwhile, YOU said you would generate perfect rules first time. YOU demanded to have your rules judged. YOU set your own stupid challenge and failed. Your rules were judged as requested and found wanting you don't get to weasel out and say "but if your judgement makes me feel bad it isn't legitimate". Because then you just do exactly what you are doing and whine on about how mean we are about judging your rules and demand ever greater layers of kitten gloves and polite begging and special rules for what is or isn't allowed to be said until EVENTUALLY you imagine you get to declare victory.

That is a LONG way away from "You are allowed to simply parse an English sentence on it's own merits". Which, again your rules repeatedly fail on even as English sentences, let alone as rules.

[Zak S]

No, you made a baseline assumption about the rule - that it "crumbles like a cookie" under scrutiny

I didn't assume, I asked questions, then I identified things about it that were undesirable. You are wrong.

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….

Wotmaniac hasn't explained why he's saying any of this or talking about it.

As to the "more oil" issue -- no, pouring more oil on a thing doesn't necessarily make a thing burn faster.

If there's more accelerant thrown on a monster on fire, the chances of the fire spreading to more hit=point-reducing areas is often increased. So you use chances and increased die rolls to represent it. More oil on you, more places where flame might be, more combat stress expressed as the abstraction called hit points. Your mistake.

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.

You either accept the premise that there is an upper numerical limit for the number of separate die rolls to be made during a game or you don't. Fireball is a save and a damage roll and is fun. Ongoing fire damage after the fire's set during a fight already going on by your rule is still 2 rolls even though all the participants are doing other things.

If you don't care about that, that's a taste issue. It slows down combat too much for me. Otherwise you're just saying "If you like some parts of combat to move faster than I do, you're lying!" Which is like saying if I say I like olives I'm lying.

ANCIENT HISTORY:

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

The only metric we are concerned with is the "sucks/not sucks" metric you began this thread with, so

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

Quote:

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

Sure.

It's nice to see at least Ancient History is smarter than the rest of y'all on that one.

You've said quite a few choice things about me, though.

Yes, you were reduced to chew-toy status long ago, see the last response to you here:

http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=55 ... &start=150

you didn't respond to that, so you are shit.

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.

20.
Are you claiming that not laying out all significant knock-on effects of a rule is necessary to make a not-sucky rule? In that case: all rules suck.

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.

21. Are you assuming that everyone is like you and so everyone's expectation is that you should never get a very likely action. (Which is what the Overwhelming Bonus is)?

22. If so: why is it that you assume chancy actions are ok, and automatic actions are ok, but very likely actions aren't?

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?

Well obviously fuck those people, that's irrelevant. But...

23. When I laid out all the ways the fight could go just in the first round, did you not realize that someone getting their sword back later is a fairly likely event in many versions of the fight?

SCRIVENER:

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?

How do you clarify how many arms an NPC has? You already know how many arms a human has.
How do you clarify their strength? Pick or roll.
How do you clarify their limits and alignment? Pick or roll.
So is everyone a whore? Only if you pick or roll that every time.

MORE WOTMANIAC:

Zak S wrote:
When I wanted to know the assumptions behind your oil rule I asked questions--I didn't assume you had a secret plot to hide how it works.

Actually, that's explicitly what you did. Like, literally.:

Zak S wrote:
You can't generally throw them all in one round unless you set a trap.

What does that even mean? What are you talking about? I explicitly assumed you had a plot? Where? Quote me?

WOTMANIAC:

Re: carrying stuff--quoting the SRD isn't an argument.

Anyway if you want encumbrance rules, go read LOTFP. It's a free download. That's one set GMs I play with use. There are lots. Then there's how that effects dex checks.

Re:

The alleged reason nobody burns monsters to death is because they secretly don't want to.

No: people just don't have that much oil to easily bring to bear all at once conveniently what with all the hassle involved. Believe me: I try to burn the biggest monster I can every week, 4 or 5 times. It isn't as easy as it looks, what with dodging traps and smoke and people magic missiling your bulging backpack full of oil and all that.


Re: PhoneLobster exploding

You were a chewtoy starting here:

http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=54 ... &start=125

"OK that's it. I was nice and patient with you because I felt some misplaced pity that some confused noob was being assed about by Kaelik. I tried to be patient and nice. However.
Fuck you.
That is a bullshit dishonest metaphor.

You assumed I was being dishonest--i.e. assuming bad faith. You have no right to demand anything after that. After you do that, the bets are off.

[Kaelik]

Zak has added a whole nother level of crazy fucking self-parody.

Now he claims that even the act of assuming someone else is arguing in bad faith constitutes being a shitty person unworthy of being addressed (and is therefore an excuse to ignore the posts you make which deliberately call him out on blatant hypocritical standards.)

Now even the very justification he uses for not addressing other peoples' arguments is itself a demonstration of hypocrisy.

It is like he is trying to simply the conclusion "Zak S is a hypocrite" into the fewest possible premises, and he is literally shooting for one.

[PhoneLobster]

Zak, you resort to this "chew toy" and "annihilated" bullshit every time you get called on your lies and can't deal.

So you just resort to pure ad hominem and then declare victory. Hilariously enough you, in some weird probably psychologically revealing manner, almost always attempt do so retroactively in some attempt to salve your battered pride and claim you were never wrong.

You also seem oddly intent on pulling this "you ceased to be a human long ago!" line on a regular basis as well. I can only assume that is also some sort of deep seated disturbing wrongness on display there too. Because it is freaking weird especially with the retroactive bit thrown in.

[Ancient History]

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

It's possible for you to write a rule that doesn't suck, dead stop. The assumed audience doesn't come in to whether or not a rule sucks.

20.
Are you claiming that not laying out all significant knock-on effects of a rule is necessary to make a not-sucky rule? In that case: all rules suck.

No, I'm not claiming that. But unintended consequences are a common aspect of bad rules, and there is nothing about your rule that suggests you intended for two master swordsmen to decide this fighting-with-business business was for pussies and get to wrasslin'.

21. Are you assuming that everyone is like you and so everyone's expectation is that you should never get a very likely action. (Which is what the Overwhelming Bonus is)?

When the Very Likely Action gives one person an unstoppable and gamebreaking advantage...yeah, in my experience it is widely frowned upon. I mean, that's the whole point of dissing munchkins and powergamers, is that people who abuse the system make the game less fun to play.

22. If so: why is it that you assume chancy actions are ok, and automatic actions are ok, but very likely actions aren't?

All things may have their purpose in a game system. Getting better at things until even difficult or nigh-impossible tasks become almost guaranteed isn't necessarily a bad thing (and hell, that's most of the point of having levels and character improvement in any game), it's only when accomplishing that task can be prone to abuse that it becomes an issue - as is the case with your social and disarm rules.

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?

Well obviously fuck those people, that's irrelevant. But...

No, don't fuck those people. There's a simulationist aspect to gaming, and it has to be addressed at some point; some people are more hardassed about it than others but it's all a matter of personal taste. Game designers have to keep that in mind - obviously nobody is ever going to make a system that's exactly as detailed as real life, so you have to have a granularity threshold in there somewhere.

23. When I laid out all the ways the fight could go just in the first round, did you not realize that someone getting their sword back later is a fairly likely event in many versions of the fight?

Did you realize that the overwhelming ease of disarming a foe regardless of their skill level was a bit ridiculous?

Okay, on this point:

Yes, you were reduced to chew-toy status long ago, see the last response to you here:

http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=55 ... &start=150

you didn't respond to that, so you are shit.

Honestly, I got tired of your insults, ignorance, and bullshit attempts to change the subject and started making this thread instead. Would you like me to go back and respond to this item-by-item?

[Zak S]

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

The assumed audience doesn't come in to whether or not a rule sucks.

24. If "the assumed audience doesn't come in to whether or not a rule sucks" yet simultaneously you accept that a rule could totally provide what group A needs and totally fail to provide what group B needs then how do we determine if the rule needs to serve Group A's capabilites or with Group B's capabilities? For example: if a rule is basically elegant and good and all that but requires several arithmetic steps that Group A finds annoying and Group B finds trivially easy--does the rule suck or not?

20.
Are you claiming that not laying out all significant knock-on effects of a rule is necessary to make a not-sucky rule? In that case: all rules suck.

No, I'm not claiming that. But unintended consequences are a common aspect of bad rules, and there is nothing about your rule that suggests you intended for two master swordsmen to decide this fighting-with-business business was for pussies and get to wrasslin'.

25. So then where exactly do you draw the line between "writing a good rule but not explaining every possible knock-on effect" and "writing a bad rule because there are some situations where there's an unexplained knock-on effect"?

21. Are you assuming that everyone is like you and so everyone's expectation is that you should never get a very likely action. (Which is what the Overwhelming Bonus is)?

When the Very Likely Action gives one person an unstoppable and gamebreaking advantage…yeah,

This vague answer leads into this...

22. If so: why is it that you assume chancy actions are ok, and automatic actions are ok, but very likely actions aren't?

All things may have their purpose in a game system. Getting better at things until even difficult or nigh-impossible tasks become almost guaranteed isn't necessarily a bad thing (and hell, that's most of the point of having levels and character improvement in any game), it's only when accomplishing that task can be prone to abuse that it becomes an issue

26. This term "prone to abuse" is vague. "Prone" seems to mean "more likely than other rules" (to lead to abuse)?

27. And "abuse"? Meaning: (what I'd say) forcing people who pursue maximum advantage to make the game reptitive boring (which neither rule does anywhere I can see)
or
meaning "violating genre conventions"
or
both or what?

Well obviously fuck those people, that's irrelevant. But…

No, don't fuck those people. There's a simulationist aspect to gaming, and it has to be addressed at some point; some people are more hardassed about it than others but it's all a matter of personal taste. Game designers have to keep that in mind - obviously nobody is ever going to make a system that's exactly as detailed as real life, so you have to have a granularity threshold in there somewhere.

28. Why do I--who am composing a rule for my game have to worry about the tastes of some other gamer never seen at my table? I am not charging anyone money under the pretense that my rules will give people a game significantly different than the one they can extensively sample online. Because we're talking about my rules on my blog--which are free.

If you refer to my sword rule--that's for me and people like me. And referring to this rule: I only know phonelobster's needs to the degree communicated in the request.

23. When I laid out all the ways the fight could go just in the first round, did you not realize that someone getting their sword back later is a fairly likely event in many versions of the fight?

Did you realize that the overwhelming ease of disarming a foe regardless of their skill level was a bit ridiculous?

I do not think it is ridiculous, I think it is fun and cool. If you would like me to run through all the cool things about disarm as an Almost Always Success for high level fighters vs even higher level fighters I can, but the point is the rule is indeed the rule I wanted.

Okay, on this point:
Quote:
Yes, you were reduced to chew-toy status long ago, see the last response to you here:
http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=55 ... &start=150
you didn't respond to that, so you are shit.

Honestly, I got tired of your insults, ignorance, and bullshit attempts to change the subject and started making this thread instead. Would you like me to go back and respond to this item-by-item?

I don't care right now, we're in the middle of a discussion where you are (unlike that one) revealing actual useful information and responding to questions when asked. I am simply informing you of things you did that were unethical and so put you beyond etiquette. If you want to know more about that, I will, of course, answer questions.

[rampaging-poet]

You either accept the premise that there is an upper numerical limit for the number of separate die rolls to be made during a game or you don't. Fireball is a save and a damage roll and is fun. Ongoing fire damage after the fire's set during a fight already going on by your rule is still 2 rolls even though all the participants are doing other things.

There is in fact a limit as to how many die rolls can reasonably be made each round, but that wasn't your original complaint. Your original complaint was that it took too long to look up the creature's Reflex save. That complaint applies just as well to a wizard casting fireball or someone standing in cloudkill as it does to a creature on fire. Being on fire is fundamentally identical to being hit with a spell every round, and if that's too complex to add to a given combat than so is every spell with an ongoing effect like cloudkill that does something every round. Far be it from me to tell you your game has to include cloudkill or wizards spamming wands of fireball, but the 3.5 fire rules are no more complicated or time-consuming than either of those things. Even basic melee attacks have the form "roll d20, compare with target number, maybe roll damage dice." Saying that using the 3.5 fire rules is too burdensome implies those other things are as well.

In the limiting case where looking up two numbers from a creature's stat block is too burdensome to bother with, basic melee attacks are also too burdensome to bother with - they actually require numbers from two different creatures. The only simpler rules in D&D are skill checks (which require looking up one number and rolling one die) and walking in a straight line (which only requires looking up one number). Saying you shouldn't use stats at all if Reflex saves take too long for you was a slight exaggeration, but throwing out everything at least as complex as the fire rules doesn't leave you with much of a game.

Also, your own rule of rolling a variable number of d6 and checking for 1s and 6s is just as time consuming. Both rules require looking up hit points and subtracting the damage from them, and once you have the hit points the Reflex save is right there unless you have the organizational skills of a banana. Both rolls require rolling some number of dice every round for each creature on fire - Nd6 for your system, 1d20 and 1d6 for the 3.5 rules. The 3.5 rules separate that into two rolls, but your rule is also two steps because you have to check the dice for special features. Your rule also has the additional bookkeeping step of keeping track of how many dice of fire are on each creature that is on fire from round to round. If the number of rolls in combat is a problem, then your own fire rule is just as bad.

[Scrivener]

How do you clarify how many arms an NPC has? You already know how many arms a human has.
How do you clarify their strength? Pick or roll.
How do you clarify their limits and alignment? Pick or roll.
So is everyone a whore? Only if you pick or roll that every time.

This is a very different question. The system you designed was to simulate social currency, that is the goal. I am asking how you can use this social currency to influence others, your stated response is still:

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

A very real question is what falls into that and what does not. There are many legitimate times asking others to act outside of social norms or typical is reasonable, just, and good. There are times where it is unsavory and repellent. Your system allows for completely repugnant actions to be made via altruism. That's bad, refusing to face that is bad.

[Zak S]

You either accept the premise that there is an upper numerical limit for the number of separate die rolls to be made during a game or you don't. Fireball is a save and a damage roll and is fun. Ongoing fire damage after the fire's set during a fight already going on by your rule is still 2 rolls even though all the participants are doing other things.

There is in fact a limit as to how many die rolls can reasonably be made each round, but that wasn't your original complaint. Your original complaint was that it took too long to look up the creature's Reflex save.

I'm willing to do it with fireball when it's cast, the demand to do it every round a fire is burning begins to be a cost that's too high.

What's so hard to understand about that?

Being on fire is fundamentally identical to being hit with a spell every round, and if that's too complex to add to a given combat than so is every spell with an ongoing effect like cloudkill that does something every round.

Depends on two things:

-How interesting is that thing going on every round. Like if I get to roll a d100 crazy effects that's fun. Ongoing fire is just more damage--which is fun but not as much fun as the rest of the fight. So the cost I accept is lower.

-How many other things are going on. When you got ongoing untended fire damage you pretty much by definition must have a lotta other stuff going on in the fight to worry about.

Why (serious question here) is this so hard for you to believe? Like I'm not saying "do it this way" I'm saying "I like it this way"

Also, your own rule of rolling a variable number of d6 and checking for 1s and 6s is just as time consuming.

Rolling a d6 for damage is one roll.
Rolling a d6 for damage plus a save is two rolls.

your rule is also two steps because you have to check the dice for special features.

This step is trivial for me. I accept it may not be trivial for you. Different strokes and all.

Your rule also has the additional bookkeeping step of keeping track of how many dice of fire are on each creature that is on fire from round to round.

The nice part about that is the player always instinctively keeps track of that because they want their fire damage. Also: corralling d6s on my own particular kitchen table is trivial for me. I accept it may not be trivial for you. Different strokes and all.

[Red_Rob]

Just gonna leave this here...

You serially derail sexism threads with bad-faith arguments. You insist that nobody can ever make generalizations about anything ever (even when they're not), then post generalizations. You pull out arguments that boil down to "words don't mean things" like that's ever been constructive outside the philosophy forum. You're passive-aggressive and occasionally condescending, you post anecdotes as facts, you tell people that things can't be sexist because you know ~females~ who would disagree. You're convinced that you're always right and refuse to consider otherwise, or at least that's the only explanation I can think of for why you keep making up strawmen to dismiss people who disagree with you (cf. the pass-agg "stop assuming all women are alike!" business, asserting that feminist game bloggers and others who disagree with you must be "conservative", every time you say "Tipper Gore" ever). You don't take anything that isn't agreement for an answer, and will argue in circles about it instead of making the positive contributions you could be until you get bored or someone makes you stop.

Now I am agreeing with RPGnet moderators. It feels kinda dirty.

[Zak S]

There are many legitimate times asking others to act outside of social norms or typical is reasonable, just, and good.

I didn't say anything about "social norms" or, really "typical". I said there's a range of things (it includes the extremes they are capable of) a given NPC will do. These are personal to the design of the PC (just as STR shows how much they can lift).

If you add subrules about norms and typical behavior you just pulled out of your butt that are bad, that's not a problem with my rule, that's a problem with the new, dumb rule you just made up. NPCs are weird freaks like everyone else whose range of behavior could include all kinds of stuff--it is up to the GM or dice to decide if they were a secret zealot or sociopath before the PCs showed up.

[Cyberzombie]

There is in fact a limit as to how many die rolls can reasonably be made each round, but that wasn't your original complaint. Your original complaint was that it took too long to look up the creature's Reflex save. That complaint applies just as well to a wizard casting fireball or someone standing in cloudkill as it does to a creature on fire. Being on fire is fundamentally identical to being hit with a spell every round, and if that's too complex to add to a given combat than so is every spell with an ongoing effect like cloudkill that does something every round. Far be it from me to tell you your game has to include cloudkill or wizards spamming wands of fireball, but the 3.5 fire rules are no more complicated or time-consuming than either of those things. Even basic melee attacks have the form "roll d20, compare with target number, maybe roll damage dice." Saying that using the 3.5 fire rules is too burdensome implies those other things are as well.

I've always ignored the "on fire" rules too, simply because I've found a reflex save every round for a pathetic 1d6 fire damage just isn't worth the time of 2 rolls. It really is an overly complicated and bad rule.

[Zak S]

Just gonna leave this here...

You serially derail sexism threads with bad-faith arguments. You insist that nobody can ever make generalizations about anything ever (even when they're not), then post generalizations. You pull out arguments that boil down to "words don't mean things" like that's ever been constructive outside the philosophy forum. You're passive-aggressive and occasionally condescending, you post anecdotes as facts, you tell people that things can't be sexist because you know ~females~ who would disagree. You're convinced that you're always right and refuse to consider otherwise, or at least that's the only explanation I can think of for why you keep making up strawmen to dismiss people who disagree with you (cf. the pass-agg "stop assuming all women are alike!" business, asserting that feminist game bloggers and others who disagree with you must be "conservative", every time you say "Tipper Gore" ever). You don't take anything that isn't agreement for an answer, and will argue in circles about it instead of making the positive contributions you could be until you get bored or someone makes you stop.

Now I am agreeing with RPGnet moderators. It feels kinda dirty.

Luckily I don't even have to address this because someone else already did:

DOYLE:
I want to predicate this post by stating that Zak S didn't ask for this, may not have wanted it, and may believe my reasoning to be flawed, inappropriate, etc. caveat emptor and all that. Sorry about the lack of formatting, as I am still figuring that out on G+. I edited the email to erase email addresses and I removed the original posting that I had pasted at the beginning of the email

A Permanent Ban notice was recently posted in the infraction forum for Zak S. As a member of RPG.net, I want and expect for this ban to be reversed, because the justification used to explain the ban is not supported by the facts, and demonstrates a bias on the part of the moderation staff, and the poster in particular. I have excerpted the ban notice below, as well as responded to each individual point below the quotes. My comments are in bold, for clarity.

The 'Message to User' details the following points to justify the Permanent Ban. In the majority of these notes, the reasons provided do not substantiate adequate justification for the ban on their face. That is, the poster makes assertions that are not true. Rather, they seem to be assertions which are distorted by an active bias on the part of the original poster. I'll address these below:

You serially derail sexism threads with bad-faith arguments.

I have yet to see any arguments where Zak asserts that which he does not believe. He sometimes provides the logical outcomes to illogical arguments, but this is different from a bad-faith argument.

You insist that nobody can ever make generalizations about anything ever (even when they're not), then post generalizations.

Again, I don't see Zak posting on generalizations, I see him positing generalizations and anecdotes based on his experiences which are offered as refutation of other's claims of experience. Which, as his post below notes, are also not subject to empirical verification, and can be contrasted only as to numbers whom he interacts with, which he clearly acknowledges as being biased. In doing so, he shows how such claims are not empirical, and can only be asserted as opinion in the absence of facts.

You pull out arguments that boil down to "words don't mean things" like that's ever been constructive outside the philosophy forum.

The rejection of a definition doesn't mean that you are rejecting the idea of definitions, just the specific use of the word in the current context. That is perfectly fair and useful in argumentation, and there are plenty of dictionaries or academic works for specialized uses of words to rely upon for verification.

You're passive-aggressive and occasionally condescending,

Really? This is a ban-able offense on RPG.net? Why are there any posters left who have not been banned?

you post anecdotes as facts,

No, he makes claims based on his own experiences which he admits are unverifiable in the absence of facts, and he does so to show that original claims like this are equally un-verifiable. He has the right to dispute with others when their experiences and conclusions don't match his own, as do we all.

you tell people that things can't be sexist because you know ~females~ who would disagree.

No, he questions why certain, images, motifs and/or ideas must be accepted as sexist when his own circle of acquaintances tell him repeatedly that they are not. There is definitely room for disagreement about this, as there are elements of culture (like pornography) where feminist critics disagree about whether they are a priori sexist.

You're convinced that you're always right and refuse to consider otherwise,

Most of the time, his logical arguments are extremely well constructed and are difficult to refute. He asks people to demonstrate why they are correct and he is incorrect. Under those circumstances, given his initial assumptions, most of the time he is correct, in the context of his argumentation. The way to argue against this is to reject his initial assumptions, and then defend why you are doing so. The fact that most people are unwilling or unable to do this means they can't win the argument and then get pissed. Are you saying that he is right so often that it pisses too many people off? I honestly don't think you want to say that, but it does make it seem that is exactly the reason why you are banning Zak permanently.

or at least that's the only explanation I can think of for why you keep making up strawmen to dismiss people who disagree with you (cf. the pass-agg "stop assuming all women are alike!" business, asserting that feminist game bloggers and others who disagree with you must be "conservative", every time you say "Tipper Gore" ever).

Each of these arguments points out that the definitions of what constitute sexism are up for debate. Not all women, not even all feminist critics, agree that images of women as sexual beings are sexist. There are certainly feminists that believe that any image of a woman within the context of sexuality is sexist and they might well be termed conservative in their belief. The 'Tipper Gore' pejorative, while a pejorative, is a useful shorthand for women like Tipper Gore, the wife of one of the most environmentally activist Democratic candidates in the world, who sought to tack right on African-American and Heavy Metal music in order to attest to her husband's centrist bona fides.


You don't take anything that isn't agreement for an answer, and will argue in circles about it instead of making the positive contributions you could be until you get bored or someone makes you stop.

No, he wants people to argue on the basis of the argument he presents, and insists that they do so. That can drive you batty when he repeats it over and over, but I am sure it drives him just as batty to have repeat the request.

These things happen a lot! The Numenera thread is by no means the only one, and the post I've chosen as an infraction is just an example: Insisting that this one monster is Definitely Sexist because it doesn't meet an arbitrary definition of sexism you came up with,

The poster makes a mistake here, and claims the opposite of what Zak is saying; that the creature in question is not sexist, because it cannot be demonstrated that sexism (a real institutional belief structure) comes about as a result of said monster. While the monster is a based on a gender-specific stereotype, it does not follow that actual, real bigotry or discrimination will result from the depiction.

asserting that anyone who disagrees has to produce scientific studies about elfgames (that work with your definition of sexism) which have been mysteriously absent from your sexism thread derailing posts up to and also beyond this point,

This is not indicative of anything besides's Zak frustration level and search for a new argument to support his position. I'm certain he would willingly use it in the future, if he thought it was useful to do so. How is this indicative of disruptive behavior?

waving around your G+ followers as an army of faceless posters who totally have your back on this,

Well. I am one of them, I guess I have a face and a voice now, don't I? I don't agree with everything that he posts, and I think he's probably too aggressive at times. But you know what? He doesn't give a shit about what I think and shouldn't have to. He is saying that others do agree with him that problems in sexism in gaming have more to do with how gamers treat women than about a monster in a game book. I do agree with that. So that's one vote, at least.

and passive-aggressively insinuating that people who disagree think all women are alike, are the real sexists and need to do their research. That is the kind of un-chill posting we are talking about here.

He doesn't say the thing the poster says he claims. He is saying that not all of the women you are familiar with or those whom you imagine that might agree with you, are the same as the women with whom he is familiar. Again, it's a refutation of a universal norm of what is classified as sexism. He does not say that those who raise these concerns, be they real or imagined, are sexists; he says that their priorities are misplaced.

Again, I see these points only as evidence that the moderation staff are biased, and seek to permanently ban him so that don't have to deal with him anymore. That's not moderation, that is the silencing of a viewpoint and individual you don't happen to like. Please reverse the ban.

[Ancient History]

24. If "the assumed audience doesn't come in to whether or not a rule sucks" yet simultaneously you accept that a rule could totally provide what group A needs and totally fail to provide what group B needs then how do we determine if the rule needs to serve Group A's capabilites or with Group B's capabilities? For example: if a rule is basically elegant and good and all that but requires several arithmetic steps that Group A finds annoying and Group B finds trivially easy--does the rule suck or not?

I laid out in the first post the reasons your rule sucks - mechanical potential for abuse and failure to meet the design criteria. Whether or not a group of people like a rule, or prefer one rule over another is not a factor. I might not like the chunky salsa rule if my character ends up in an elevator shaft with a live grenade, but that doesn't mean that rule sucks.

25. So then where exactly do you draw the line between "writing a good rule but not explaining every possible knock-on effect" and "writing a bad rule because there are some situations where there's an unexplained knock-on effect"?

It has to be the measure of the potential for abuse. For example, in Shadowrun 3rd edition physical adepts with the Astral Perception power could learn the Limited Astral Projection metamagic that allowed them to astrally project for a brief period of time; the unintended and unsaid side effect of this is that such characters could then take metamagics based off astral projection like Possession. This wasn't considered an abuse of the rules, because it wasn't particularly gamebreaking, just opening up additional options to certain characters.

And hey, that happens sometimes - nobody can see all the effects of all the rule interactions, especially if new material keeps getting written for the system in the future. In professional games you sort of hope that if that thing does crop up the people publishing the game will recognize the problem and fix it.

26. This term "prone to abuse" is vague. "Prone" seems to mean "more likely than other rules" (to lead to abuse)?

"Open to abuse" is a general term suggesting that a rule is written or phrased in such a way as to be abusable, "prone to abuse" suggests a tendency to it among players. There are a large number of anecdotes that suggest rules of the type you wrote (potential overwhelming bonus) are prone to abuse because, well, people have abused similar rules in the past - such as the Diplomancer in D20 D&D, and the Pornomancer in Shadowrun 4.

27. And "abuse"? Meaning: (what I'd say) forcing people who pursue maximum advantage to make the game reptitive boring (which neither rule does anywhere I can see)
or
meaning "violating genre conventions"
or
both or what?

Abuse of game rules generally involves deriving maximum benefit out of a particular rule (even twisting a character to fit around it), often to the detriment of the other player characters (or, if the GM is abusing the system using an NPC, to the detriment of the PCs), and basically upsetting the balance of the game and probably causing people to have less fun. It's sometimes more complicated than that, because there can be a lot of hashing-about of rules "fixes" and players insisting on being able to play certain character types to take advantage of certain rules at the expense of other players, for example, but it's not limited to that. Any player that finds a significant exploit in the system can pretty much break the game...consider Pun-Pun, for example.

28. Why do I--who am composing a rule for my game have to worry about the tastes of some other gamer never seen at my table? I am not charging anyone money under the pretense that my rules will give people a game significantly different than the one they can extensively sample online. Because we're talking about my rules on my blog--which are free.

Actually, we're talking about the rules you posted here. But the fact is every game is simulationist to some extant. You may not write your rules specifically for an audience of hard grognard-y men that collect swords and know the difference between an arming sword and spadroon and what their advantages in combat are, but you do write your rules for a game where there are sword fights. You might not write to those people, and that's your choice, but that doesn't mean "fuck those people." They have as much right to criticize your rules as anyone, and it's a fair complaint to say "That's not a good simulation of sword combat in real life," and you're allowed to say back "It's a simplification, and suits my purposes well enough," and that's a fair claim.

23. When I laid out all the ways the fight could go just in the first round, did you not realize that someone getting their sword back later is a fairly likely event in many versions of the fight?

Did you realize that the overwhelming ease of disarming a foe regardless of their skill level was a bit ridiculous?

I do not think it is ridiculous, I think it is fun and cool. If you would like me to run through all the cool things about disarm as an Almost Always Success for high level fighters vs even higher level fighters I can, but the point is the rule is indeed the rule I wanted.

And that is as may be the case. But it is still a ridiculous rule on the face of it, because you have high-level fighters getting disarmed very easily as well. That's silly. If you were going for silliness and that's what you want in your games, you've succeeded admirably.

I don't care right now, we're in the middle of a discussion where you are (unlike that one) revealing actual useful information. I am simply informing you of things you did that were unethical and so put you beyond etiquette. If you want to know more about that, I will, of course, answer questions.

"Beyond etiquette?" Dude, I tried to warn you about what this board was like when you first started in on this, and you came off as a pretentious asshole. You've spent your time here accusing people (falsely) of being liars and idiots, and failing repeatedly to admit your own mistakes. How the hell does that make me unethical?

[Scrivener]

There are many legitimate times asking others to act outside of social norms or typical is reasonable, just, and good.

I didn't say anything about "social norms" or, really "typical". I said there's a range of things (it includes the extremes they are capable of) a given NPC will do. These are personal to the design of the PC (just as STR shows how much they can lift).

If you add subrules about norms and typical behavior you just pulled out of your butt that are bad, that's not a problem with my rule, that's a problem with the new, dumb rule you just made up. NPCs are weird freaks like everyone else whose range of behavior could include all kinds of stuff--it is up to the GM or dice to decide if they were a secret zealot or sociopath before the PCs showed up.

What rule did I make up? You said said

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

I asked what is this range of actions. No rules were made up by me, heck we already mentioned alignment and ethics were intertwined-

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.

I want your system to work, I think it has flaws, but as a very basic framework the idea may not be inherently failed. What rule did I write when I asked what exactly is beyond the pale for NPCs?

I see two options:
A- NPCs can act in a myriad of ways and given circumstances nearly everyone is capable of anything: this means that your system makes people more likely to do any action for someone who has done tons of tiny tasks around town. Following that logic you can talk a paladin into murder via dusting and killing baddies. That is a problem.

B- NPCs are scripted and PC interaction has no real effect. No villain can be redeemed, no paladin can be corrupted. Then I must ask what your system does? Social encounters are then pointless.

If I am missing a third option please let me know, but every solution I can come up with varies between A with needing to dust more or B changing NPCs into choose your own adventure (were there isn't really a choice).

[Zak S]

24. If "the assumed audience doesn't come in to whether or not a rule sucks" yet simultaneously you accept that a rule could totally provide what group A needs and totally fail to provide what group B needs then how do we determine if the rule needs to serve Group A's capabilites or with Group B's capabilities? For example: if a rule is basically elegant and good and all that but requires several arithmetic steps that Group A finds annoying and Group B finds trivially easy--does the rule suck or not?

I laid out in the first post the reasons your rule sucks - mechanical potential for abuse and failure to meet the design criteria. Whether or not a group of people like a rule, or prefer one rule over another is not a factor. I might not like the chunky salsa rule if my character ends up in an elevator shaft with a live grenade, but that doesn't mean that rule sucks.

29. So "This rule requires too much arithmetic in the middle of a round" is not a reason a rule could suck?

30. Or...it isn't if even one group can handle the math? How many groups have to not see the arithmetic load as a burden before it ceases to suck?

25. So then where exactly do you draw the line between "writing a good rule but not explaining every possible knock-on effect" and "writing a bad rule because there are some situations where there's an unexplained knock-on effect"?

It has to be the measure of the potential for abuse. For example, in Shadowrun 3rd edition physical adepts with the Astral Perception power could learn the Limited Astral Projection metamagic that allowed them to astrally project for a brief period of time; the unintended and unsaid side effect of this is that such characters could then take metamagics based off astral projection like Possession. This wasn't considered an abuse of the rules, because it wasn't particularly gamebreaking, just opening up additional options to certain characters.

And hey, that happens sometimes - nobody can see all the effects of all the rule interactions, especially if new material keeps getting written for the system in the future. In professional games you sort of hope that if that thing does crop up the people publishing the game will recognize the problem and fix it.

31. Same question again since you didn't really answer just gave an anecdote: So then where exactly do you draw the line between "writing a good rule but not explaining every possible knock-on effect" and "writing a bad rule because there are some situations where there's an unexplained knock-on effect"?

26. This term "prone to abuse" is vague. "Prone" seems to mean "more likely than other rules" (to lead to abuse)?

"Open to abuse" is a general term suggesting that a rule is written or phrased in such a way as to be abusable, "prone to abuse" suggests a tendency to it among players. There are a large number of anecdotes that suggest rules of the type you wrote (potential overwhelming bonus) are prone to abuse because, well, people have abused similar rules in the past - such as the Diplomancer in D20 D&D, and the Pornomancer in Shadowrun 4.

32. This just leads back to why you have a problem with the Very Likely Action and is vague. Is it too much to ask to narrate out (it can be short) a situation where my rule results in something worse than what Charm makes likely. Like using "Ok, Dave does x…" an example?

33. (if possible show why this outcome must be less fun not just for people in a narrow taste subgenre but all possible fans of all possible kinds of games.)

28. Why do I--who am composing a rule for my game have to worry about the tastes of some other gamer never seen at my table? I am not charging anyone money under the pretense that my rules will give people a game significantly different than the one they can extensively sample online. Because we're talking about my rules on my blog--which are free.

Actually, we're talking about the rules you posted here. But the fact is every game is simulationist to some extant. You may not write your rules specifically for an audience of hard grognard-y men that collect swords and know the difference between an arming sword and spadroon and what their advantages in combat are, but you do write your rules for a game where there are sword fights. You might not write to those people, and that's your choice, but that doesn't mean "fuck those people." They have as much right to criticize your rules as anyone, and it's a fair complaint to say "That's not a good simulation of sword combat in real life," and you're allowed to say back "It's a simplification, and suits my purposes well enough," and that's a fair claim.

Then accept when I say "fuck those people" I do not mean I wish ill on them but rather that their purposes are not mine and I accept no obligation from them other than in the form of "This rule sucks if you want ___(description of game they want here that isn't some BS like 'a good game')___".

34. Do you accept that?

23. When I laid out all the ways the fight could go just in the first round, did you not realize that someone getting their sword back later is a fairly likely event in many versions of the fight?

Did you realize that the overwhelming ease of disarming a foe regardless of their skill level was a bit ridiculous?

I do not think it is ridiculous, I think it is fun and cool. If you would like me to run through all the cool things about disarm as an Almost Always Success for high level fighters vs even higher level fighters I can, but the point is the rule is indeed the rule I wanted.

And that is as may be the case. But it is still a ridiculous rule on the face of it, because you have high-level fighters getting disarmed very easily as well. That's silly. If you were going for silliness and that's what you want in your games, you've succeeded admirably.

35. I have observed that the rule actually results in high-level fighters getting disarmed fairly rarely even by mathnerd crunchmonster players whose dayjobs involve shooting lasers at things and have good reasons to believe things will continue to be that way for some time to come. Do you want to hear those reasons or will you accept that with no argument?

"Beyond etiquette?" Dude, I tried to warn you about what this board was like when you first started in on this, and you came off as a pretentious asshole. You've spent your time here accusing people (falsely) of being liars and idiots, and failing repeatedly to admit your own mistakes. How the hell does that make me unethical?

You assumed bad faith. You assumed ignorance of obvious facts (like you kept telling my group isn't representative of all groups after I wrote that myself about 20 times), you didn't answer questions when asked, you didn't ask questions instead of assuming insulting things, you attacked me names right outta the box without even establishing any kind of complaint I could address. None of those things are ok. If you doubt the facts, I can give you links, but you can just trace back the last link I posted and find all the things you said.

[Chamomile]

So in addition to PhoneLobster and Frank Trollman, we can now add the Gaming Den generally and the rpg.net mods to the list of unholy unions agreeing that Zak S should stop talking and feel bad about himself. Coming up next: Winston Churchill and Adolf Hitler join forces in condemning Zak's apple-stacking.