Your Rule Sucks: The Zak S Social Currency Edition

[Zak S]

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-

The rule you made up was that their personality would be subject to
"social norms" (it's not) or to "typical behavior" (it's not)

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).

You are definitely missing a third option:

Imagine the NPC's current activities at any given moment as a position on a continent. These need not be typical activities or ones decided by social norms. They just are busy right now. Or asleep. Or eating peaches.

A PC wants them to do another thing. What thing? Anything on that continent. The PC wants the NPC to get out of bed and fight an owlbear, for instance.

However, the PC cannot, via only social persuasion--absent magic---make them do things that are not on that continent.

Just like right now you're in front of a screen. In the next hour, you maybe could go to the movies. In the next hour, you could not go to the heart of the sun. So there is 3 circles:
-What you are doing now (position)
-A range of options of things you could be doing (continent)
-A range of things you could never do (all things not on that continent)

That may be unrealistic, but it does everything I need NPCs to do. How to determine the shape of the continent? Roll or pick. What about an edge case? Roll or pick. A GM is expected to be able to determine somehow the personality of an NPC.

[rampaging-poet]

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"

"Just more damage" is an interesting effect at low levels. A barbarian with a Constitution of 14 only has 14 HP at that level, so he will be incapacitated after being on fire for four rounds on average (1d6 = ~3.5 damage/round). Taking out a quarter of the highest HP character's health in one round is important, and setting fire to people is about as effective as adding another warrior to your side. The real problem with the 3.5 fire rules is that being on fire quickly stops being a threat, but that's true of any low-level threat to high-level characters.

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.

And looking up a Reflex save when I already have the page marked for every other stat the creature has[/i] is trivial for me. I also forgot to mention that your method requires totalling the damage done if more than two dice were rolled, which adds another (short) step to your rule. I'm not trying to show that the standard rule is faster, just that the time required for both is similar.

I don't believe that requiring knowledge of a creature's statistics is a mark against most rules because those statistics are how the rules represent differences between different creatures. I assert that looking up a creature's Reflex save is not appreciably more time-consuming than looking up its hit points and that no matter how long looking up one takes you the other is trivial because they are given in the same place. Therefore I disagree with your statement that looking up a Reflex save when something catch on fire could be too burdensome for some groups.

[Zak S]

I disagree with your statement that looking up a Reflex save when something catch on fire could be too burdensome for some groups.

Fascinating. So when people try it both ways and go "Oh, I like it better this way" why are they lying, in your opinion? What motivates them? Mere delusion of the type people write pop psychology articles about (People Think People With Good Handwriting Are Smarter?

Or is it possible, in your mind, that a computational and micrologistic task that's slightly easy for you is hard for someone else and vice versa?

_
Also (don't know if you knew this) but some people make up monsters and sometimes you have to make them up quick (if you're running a sandbox and an unexpected monster is summoned or appears--Pack of Wolves!). Sometimes the save isn't there on the same page--and saves always require either looking at a chart (AD&D) or more math (3.5). And in AD&D, it's always in a different book than the write-up. Also…what's the fucking DC of this save? Gotta look that up, too...

Again: that's a small price to pay for a fireball, higher price for fire damage you knew was coming already.

[codeGlaze]

... why is this still a thing?

[DSMatticus]

If anyone else were arguing that looking up a monster's reflex save was overly burdensome, I would call it "parody" or "trolling." The amount of WTF-ery in that is staggering. You're telling us you can't be assed to look at monster stat blocks for the monsters you run. Or you have Owlish Oculars Disease, and your eyes are fixed in their sockets such that you have to do a weird head-book dance to read things and navigating something as simple as the stat block directly in front of you is somehow difficult. Alternatively, you're telling us you don't use stat blocks at all (either your own or a book's), and just make numbers and results up out of thin air, at which point... what does it matter? You can do the same for their reflex save.

But seriously, your characters make attacks, cast spells, and do damage. All of those involve lookups to monster stat blocks (armor class, saving throws, hitpoints). Monsters make attacks, cast spells, and do damage. All of those involve lookups to monster stat blocks (attack bonus, save DC, attack damage). You are telling us that having to know or look up a piece of information inside a monster stat block that you already have to look up everytime the party wizard casts fireball or web is a showstopper. I don't know how to approach that. It's too fucking stupid.

Seriously, Zak: how do you handle spellcaster PC's without looking up their target's saving throws?

[Zak S]

Looking up statblocks is fine--looking them up extra times for little reward is the burden.

If anyone else were arguing that looking up a monster's reflex save was overly burdensome, I would call it "parody" or "trolling." The amount of WTF-ery in that is staggering. You're telling us you can't be assed to look at monster stat blocks for the monsters you run.

I just now asked everyone in the D&D game I was playing whether that's a pain to look up the statblock an extra time when stuff's taking ongoing fire damage and they all said yes. (Many times running monsters you don't ever use their saves because they're never targeted.) (Also: you keep the hp tally on a piece of paper and the book/screen with stats elsewhere, so unless you ALWAYS run a railroad or limited-option scenario where you transfer every monster in advance to the paper, then those are recorded in different places--hp tally and saves are.)

So I guess I just blew your mind. It's weird you don't know anyone who isn't like you.

Seriously, Zak: how do you handle spellcaster PC's without looking up their target's saving throws?

You aren't following? You look up the save for a spell because it's worth it. Re-read the discussion up to this point to see that bit.

[MGuy]

... why is this still a thing?

code you must not have been reading this. It's not like beating the same dead horse. It's like this guy is creating new horses to be beaten every couple of pages. Soon this thread will get so long that every aspect of Zak S's personality will be put on display in a decaying monument made out of, what will be, dead horses that Zak himself produced.

[Ancient History]

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

Not an objective and provable one.

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?

Generally speaking, if a group can't handle the math, then the group either needs to work on their math skills or consider playing a different game. Not everybody cares to brush up on their calculus for Traveller. Not all groups can handle violence, magic, or sex in their games either, that doesn't mean those rules suck. Just because one group doesn't like the rules doesn't mean the rules don't work.

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"?

Same answer, minus the example then: it depends. There is no precise limit. When it becomes apparent that the rule can be, or is, abused, then it is a bad rule.

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.)

Your rule's pretty vague on the situations, so...okay, let's use a very broad example.

Character A has, for whatever reason, an overwhelmingly large bonus accrued over your social rules. He is meeting Character B.

Character B is the legendary god-king of Deiopolis, the benevolent and immortal tyrant-ruler by right of his divine sword, Asskicker, whom he will never give away to anyone.

Character A: "Hey, can I hold your sword?"

<No CHA Check:>
Character B: "You've given me a lot of apples, but go fuck yourself."

<CHA Check:>
Character B: "Okie-doke."

Character B hands sword to Character A, Character A lops off Character B's head and declares himself god-king...and just derailed the entire campaign.

That's a polite example. Character A could have asked to fuck Character B's wife. Character A could have asked to fuck another player character, and the other player would have had no choice or recourse as Character A fucked their PC. Charisma covers pretty much any social situation, so really if Character A has a big enough bonus they can do almost fucking anything.

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?

Well, I'd hope you'd accept that they have legitimate criticism, but yes I can accept if you have a stylistic agreement and chose to ignore them.

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?

I'll accept that I have no interest in the shit that goes on in your games or any of your anecdotes of the same. If I ever do care, I think you've got a couple podcasts somewhere.

You assumed bad faith.

You demonstrated 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 keep saying this. I'm not sure where you're getting it. I did say that because your rule worked for your group doesn't mean it works for any other group. That doesn't mean your group is representative; it's actually pretty much the opposite. Your group might well be exceptional.

you didn't answer questions when asked,

You've ignored plenty of my questions, and answers, and you often seem to mistake some of the statements you've made as asking questions when they really aren't.

you didn't ask questions instead of assuming insulting things,

I did quote you a lot and base what I said on the quotes of the things you actually said. I assumed that since you said them you meant them. Why do you think people need to contact you for clarification regarding what you post?

you attacked me names right outta the box without even establishing any kind of complaint I could address.

I really didn't.

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.

I love that song!

[Gnorman]

You aren't following? You look up the save for a spell because it's worth it. Re-read the discussion up to this point to see that bit.

Uh, looking it up for a monster that's hit by a Fireball and looking it up for when a monster's on fire takes the same amount of effort, because it's the SAME FUCKING NUMBER. In fact, Fireball probably requires more effort, because it can affect multiple targets who might have different Reflex saves. Are you seriously suggesting you can't remember a two-digit number from round to round?

[Zak S]

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

Not an objective and provable one.

36. So: roll to hit by adding literally 800 scores different numbers together wouldn't be a sucky rule?

37. If it is, where's the line?

[codeGlaze]

code you must not have been reading this. It's not like beating the same dead horse. It's like this guy is creating new horses to be beaten every couple of pages. Soon this thread will get so long that every aspect of Zak S's personality will be put on display in a decaying monument made out of, what will be, dead horses that Zak himself produced.

Every now and then I find myself reading the thread, then I stop and go "WHHYYYYYY?" and close the tab.

Which is why I look at it being FOURTEEN pages long and get a little sad.

Although, I suppose Zak continuing his crusade on this forum is like... the unbreakable wall meeting the unstoppable force.

[MGuy]

You aren't following? You look up the save for a spell because it's worth it. Re-read the discussion up to this point to see that bit.

Uh, looking it up for a monster that's hit by a Fireball and looking it up for when a monster's on fire takes the same amount of effort, because it's the SAME FUCKING NUMBER. In fact, Fireball probably requires more effort, because it can affect multiple targets who might have different Reflex saves. Are you seriously suggesting you can't remember a two-digit number from round to round?

I don't believe he ever said he can't, just he won't. Also, he doesn't know how spells work and will just make up rules for spells on the fly. At least I'm going to assume from his statements thus far.

[Ancient History]

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

Not an objective and provable one.

36. So: roll to hit by adding literally 800 scores different numbers together wouldn't be a sucky rule?

Mechanically, that could be fine. Game design, might be an issue. Campaign for North Africa famously takes longer to play than the actual conflict.

37. If it is, where's the line?

For how much math to do in combat? No right answer. Some people think any math is too much, others might like to break out the protractor and abacus.

[angelfromanotherpin]

AFAICT, the octopus that lives in Zak S' head gets very angry if he doesn't respond to people saying mean things about him. On the internet. That's a dreadful state to be in, but it does seem to be an appropriate punishment for the methods he uses.

As for everyone else, I think they're trying to break the 12-hour record. Maybe if we can get him going long enough, Zak S. will have some kind of sleep-dep-based antipsychotic break and realize that not defending himself is a viable and highly reasonable option.

[codeGlaze]

AFAICT, the octopus that lives in Zak S' head gets very angry if he doesn't respond to people saying mean things about him. On the internet. That's a dreadful state to be in, but it does seem to be an appropriate punishment for the methods he uses.

Haha, yea I liked the Beetlejuice reference made earlier in the thread. It fits rather well.

As for everyone else, I think they're trying to break the 12-hour record. Maybe if we can get him going long enough, Zak S. will have some kind of sleep-dep-based antipsychotic break and realize that not defending himself is a viable and highly reasonable option.

It'd really be better if he just didn't give a shit, because at least then he could pretend to take the moral high ground by ignoring people who criticize him or his style/musings/etc.

[Scrivener]

The rule you made up was that their personality would be subject to
"social norms" (it's not) or to "typical behavior" (it's not)

I apologize. I was unaware that I should have clarified and been more precise. So we are on the same page, social norms are what is considered to be "acceptable" actions in a given society, actions that do not conform to these social norms are taboo. The degree of taboo can vary, some taboo actions are merely frowned upon while others cause someone to be shunned from their community.

Typical behavior is a very poorly defined set of actions, I should have said "Representative behavior" to imply conforming with the particular ethos of a community or group. (While typical and representative are functionally synonyms in the this instance, it is quite easy to argue that typical for one person in a society is not typical for another, I am sorry that I have caused confusion by being imprecise)

Why am I going on about Taboos and such?

You already agreed that actions of NPCs are determined by taboos, morals and ethics, the concept that social mores is implicit in the acceptance of Taboos. Also in your accepting that morals, ethics, and taboos may vary from NPC to NPC means that you can expect that typical Representative behavior differs from community to community.

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.

Or did you actually mean something else when you said this?

You are definitely missing a third option:

Imagine the NPC's current activities at any given moment as a position on a continent. These need not be typical activities or ones decided by social norms. They just are busy right now. Or asleep. Or eating peaches.

A PC wants them to do another thing. What thing? Anything on that continent. The PC wants the NPC to get out of bed and fight an owlbear, for instance.

However, the PC cannot, via only social persuasion--absent magic---make them do things that are not on that continent.

Just like right now you're in front of a screen. In the next hour, you maybe could go to the movies. In the next hour, you could not go to the heart of the sun. So there is 3 circles:
-What you are doing now (position)
-A range of options of things you could be doing (continent)
-A range of things you could never do (all things not on that continent)

That may be unrealistic, but it does everything I need NPCs to do. How to determine the shape of the continent? Roll or pick. What about an edge case? Roll or pick. A GM is expected to be able to determine somehow the personality of an NPC.

I'm not sure I'm understanding you. I think that I'm getting lost in your analogy. How I understand you is NPCs are given a set of feasible actions they can take, both morally and physically. The PCs may not cause a NPC to act outside of what is physically possible for them without extraordinary means (magic), and in just the same way the PCs may not cause a NPC to act outside of what is morally "possible" for them without extraordinary means (magic). Is that about right?

If so, how is that not my option 2? Every NPC has a set of options, and the PCs may only choose from that set of options. How does placing Old Man Williams's moral position at such a place where he would never allow his mill to be used for free differ from the DM saying "You can't get Old Man Williams to let you use the mill"? How does your system come into play in either scenario? To put it simpler, if there are actions that NPCs will refuse to take no matter what the PCs do, what point is there in PCs using social abilities?

(sorry about the edits, I failed at formatting for a bit)

[Maxus]

AFAICT, the octopus that lives in Zak S' head gets very angry if he doesn't respond to people saying mean things about him. On the internet. That's a dreadful state to be in, but it does seem to be an appropriate punishment for the methods he uses.

As for everyone else, I think they're trying to break the 12-hour record. Maybe if we can get him going long enough, Zak S. will have some kind of sleep-dep-based antipsychotic break and realize that not defending himself is a viable and highly reasonable option.

Yesterday he posted from 12:24 in the afternoon to 2:52 in the morning (Central time). At least once or twice an hour.

So call it 14.5 hours.

He's knocking on twelve solid hours today, so we'll see.

[Mistborn]

Looking up statblocks is fine--looking them up extra times for little reward is the burden.

The fuck you're seriously saying that in a world with miraculous things like the d20SRD or even a fucking bookmarks that looking up a number on a monsters statblock is this huge burden? Even if it's a number you might need to reference anyway for other PC actions. Why the fuck do you even own RPG books then?

[Zak S]

Not an objective and provable one.

36. So: roll to hit by adding literally 800 scores different numbers together wouldn't be a sucky rule?

Mechanically, that could be fine. Game design, might be an issue. Campaign for North Africa famously takes longer to play than the actual conflict.

37. If it is, where's the line?

For how much math to do in combat? No right answer. Some people think any math is too much, others might like to break out the protractor and abacus.

38.
So when there's a design problem which pits (A) increasing computational simplicity vs. (B) reduced abuse potential, the person advocating for A has a real but unmeasurable pointand person advocating for B has a real and measurable point?

That is person B can always claim objectivity and A can't but A still has a point--is that what you're saying?

Rather like 2 engineers arguing about making a car uglier (subjective) yet more reliable (objective)?

[DSMatticus]

I just now asked everyone in the D&D game I was playing whether that's a pain to look up the statblock an extra time when stuff's taking ongoing fire damage and they all said yes.

Have you considered the possibility that you are one of the most incompetently organized people on the face of the planet?

If you are using dead tree products, you should not actually close the book when you're done with it. You might even want to invest in a couple of bookmarks. And by that I mean take a sheet of notebook paper and tear it into strips and place them between pages you are using. You could even scribble minimalist statblocks for all the monsters in an encounter onto a sheet of your own notebook paper to avoid any flipping at all for trivial actions. If you are using a computer, wut. How is this a problem.

Beyond that, you can and should make the reflex saving throw on the monster's turn. It's very difficult to imagine a monster taking a turn in which you don't have to use anything from its statblock, so its statblock is already right fucking there in front of you and you don't have to do anything at all except be literate and glance down. You are literate and have a neck. Requirements met.

It is incredibly difficult to take you seriously when you think things like this are a problem.

[Sakuya Izayoi]

AFAICT, the octopus that lives in Zak S' head gets very angry if he doesn't respond to people saying mean things about him. On the internet. That's a dreadful state to be in, but it does seem to be an appropriate punishment for the methods he uses.

As for everyone else, I think they're trying to break the 12-hour record. Maybe if we can get him going long enough, Zak S. will have some kind of sleep-dep-based antipsychotic break and realize that not defending himself is a viable and highly reasonable option.

I just keep reloading the forum index, and this thread is always at the top with him as the last poster.

I can hardly read the thread itself, as it always involves him cutting posts into tiny bites divorced of the context and cohesion of the original post, and responds to them bit by bit, instead of putting his reply into the same form as the quoted post.

It's just click, scrollscrollscrollscrollscrollscrollscrollscrollscrolls, eyes glaze over, back to the thread index.

[Kaelik]

Looking up statblocks is fine--looking them up extra times for little reward is the burden.

The fuck you're seriously saying that in a world with miraculous things like the d20SRD or even a fucking bookmarks that looking up a number on a monsters statblock is this huge burden? Even if it's a number you might need to reference anyway for other PC actions. Why the fuck do you even own RPG books then?

Did you just assume that Zak S owns rulebooks without asking for clarification! Maybe he makes up literally everything on the spot without absolutely no rules anywhere, since his 3 second brain farts are actually greater than the collective works of Shakespeare.

Apologize for assuming he owns books Mistborn, or else he will revoke your humanity with his mighty words as well!

[codeGlaze]

I just keep reloading the forum index, and this thread is always at the top with him as the last poster.

[ ... ]

It's just click, scrollscrollscrollscrollscrollscrollscrollscrollscrolls, eyes glaze over, back to the thread index.

I might get halfway down any one page before my reserve of fucks-to-give completely empties and I just go back to the index and/or other subforums in hopes there's an interesting conversation elsewhere. xD

[rampaging-poet]

Nobody needs to look up the statblock "extra" times for ongoing effects. You need it for attacks, you need it for damage, you need it for any saves against other things that happen in battle. Not having the statblock right in front of you is simply irresponsible. Even supposing that remembering a few saving throws is beyond your abilities, bookmarks (both physical and Internet) exist, making switching between statblocks take seconds at most.

The worst case scenario is that somebody drops a wall of fire on some creatures you did not expect them to attack. When that happens, the rules suggest that you find the statblocks for those creatures, roll saving throws, and apply damage. Perhaps these creatures are scattered between books and it takes some time for you to find them to begin with. Once you have done that, marking the pages with scrap paper or index cards is trivial, and you will be able to locate those statblocks for the remainder of the combat without any additional difficulty. With the magic of the Internet, you may even be able to hav them open in multiple tabs of the web browser of your choice and switch between with a click or a few keystrokes.

On top of that, this is still a response to the first of your complaints about the 3.5 fire rules. You made a vague claim about using alternate encumberance systems to prevent people from using large amounts of oil, but that completely fails to address the existence of beasts of burden, portable holes, polymorphing into a creature that can carry that much oil, and sundry other ways to avoid interacting with whatever houserule you think prevents it. Your rule also doesn't allow things that demonstrably burn in real life to burn for more than a few rounds except by arbitrarily deciding that your rule for fire only applies some of the time. While most people will just handwave campfires instead of rolling damage for each log, the results of using the 3.5 rule to simulate a fire are much better than the results your rule provides. In 3.5, wood burns for about 6 minutes per inch of thickness instead of about 18 seconds, and it also burns all the way through instead of just being slightly singed.

[sandmann]

Looking up statblocks is fine--looking them up extra times for little reward is the burden.

The fuck you're seriously saying that in a world with miraculous things like the d20SRD or even a fucking bookmarks that looking up a number on a monsters statblock is this huge burden?

Dude, he is all in favor of making DM life as easy as possible, thats the reason his social system tells the DM to make up a range of possible requests for every NPC the heroes interact with. Because that is totally less complex than looking to a page that is already open. Because ... stuff.

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.

Your encumbrance rules are not an argument. Mine are. Because ... stuff.

Quote:
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.

If I assume an audience, that is a viable and necessary thing. If you do it, fuck those guys. Because ... stuff.

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.)

Because when you make a challenge with PhoneLobster, and take PhoneLobsters input, and have PhoneLobster as the audience, and you answer PhoneLobsters post, than PhoneLobster is not the targeted audience. Because ... stuff.

I love this thread.