Zak S wrote:50. So Chess is a better game than D&D if you want to only use the objective scale. Chess has less potential for abuse than D&D in any form yet created. Correct?
Don't know about "any form yet created," because honestly I've only looked up a few of the fairy chess variants. Mechanically, chess has less potential for abuse than D&D. Of course, chess generally isn't a form of roleplaying.
I mean the swordfight of 2 swordsmen that goes "initiative roll to hit, miss, roll to hit, miss, intiiative, roll to hit, damage, cross off number, roll to hit, damage" and that's all they do or say is totally a possibility using D&D and that's more boring than all the consequences you've described. That's the mechanics allowing for a boring outcome.
Did you have a point buried in there?
51. You assert "too much math/flipping" is subjective and "abusable" is objective. Could be true. But really you're not claiming "abusable" you're claiming "too abusable" correct? Because otherwise you'd have to admit Charm (and many other D&D rules you would use) are "abusable". Almost any D&D rule can be abused. It's the probability for abuse you're judging. Correct?
Not really. I can't judge how
probable any given abuse of the rules might be; I can only show mathematically that such abuse is possible.
Mechanically, I don't feel
charm in AD&D is broken - it's limited to certain classes of characters at certain levels, it has a limited effect, there are some critters like elves that are plain immune to it, and everyone else gets a saving throw. You
can have some exceptional situations where
charm saves the day or casters that spam
charm all the time, but I consider that a fair cop the way that a gun with lots of bullets is fair in a world with swordsmen.
"Charm spell, as we have said many many times, allows a saving throw. It at least allows an opportunity for the character to resist. The overwhelming bonus against a static target number does not allow that. "
52. You've referred to this defense many times as if it mattered and I can't think for the life of me why.
And this is perhaps the heart of your problem. The problem with your static TN rules so far is that they can result in situations where passing the effect is basically
automatic. Now maybe the fucking saving throw is a formality in some cases, but at least it gives you a fucking hope. You've yet to tell us how your master swordsman would hold on to his fucking weapon if some apprentice decides to disarm him, for example. I mean, let's look at your example (spoilered because this is long enough already):
Example, AD&D. Let's charitably (very charitably to you) assume the Master Swordsman got to be a Master Swordsman with a Dex of only 12. Anything less could reasonably be construed as an obviously exploitable weakness the enemy is clever to target.
So their AC is 12. 9th level is the point where the student has what might begin to be considered to have an Overwhelming Advantage to hit AC 12 (they, at that point, need only a 4 or better, before that they needed at least a 6, which I wouldn't consider overhwhelming).
The Master must be at least 11th level then. (Both student and master fall into the same fighter multiple attacks bracket for post-Unearthed Arcana AD&D).
So we got the lowest plausible Dex for a Master Swordsman, we got the lowest plausible level for the student (9th level--which is already an amazing fucking hero whose player been probably been playing AD&D at least once a week for a year. That's charitable--I got an AD&D level 9 after…2 or 3 years.) And we have the lowest possible difference between student and alleged master.
If the Master was prioritizing not being disarmed, they could use the Fight Defensively rule for one of his attacks (both combatants get an extra attack every other round). (+4 to AC). Now the student needs an 8 or better and the advantage isn't overwhelming, it's just a good tactic targeting the Master's barely-above-average dexterity. The Master on the other hand needs only a 2 to disarm the student if they have the same dex (12) and an 8 to disarm a max dex (18) student. And a master who has the experience vs a student who has the innate agility should look like that.
That's just the simplest example. The master could do other, cooler stuff, too. Like tie the sword on a short thin cord to their wrist.
Anyway: that is a scenario I find acceptable. If you do not, that isn't an objective assessment by you, that's just your taste talking. You want level (having played more D&D) to create a bigger difference faster than I do.
Long spoiler short: student can disarm his master by rolling 8 on a d20 - and that's after the master decides to "fight defensively" and not counting any other bonus. So your master swordsman in this example basically has almost no chance of keeping some snot-nosed punk from disarming him, and on the second round probably getting stabbed because he's now unarmed. Can you not conceive how many people think it should be
more difficult to disarm a master swordsman than a student, or how that could be abused?
…in your god-king example you completely ignored all the other NPCs in the world who would want that god-king's sword.
In your examples, you've ignored every other NPC in the world too. Did you want to go back and sketch them all out and we'll meet here in a hundred years to see who's done a better job?
If you could, can you narrate (in more plausible detail) 2 situations one with Charm and one with my mechanic that takes into effect all of the considerations actually in the rule that shows how the overall end effect of the PCs being able to take this Very Likely Action after doing a lot of work is more abusable than he PCs being able to just Charm the target with a successful save.
I could, yes. I'm not going to. I've already submitted to quite a number of your requests here, and you've yet to produce anything like a fucking point to compensate.
Also, in your example, the consequence was not that bad--a dead king. The game didn't necessarily get boring, it likely got more chaotic and interesting. So your example will need a consequence that is boring--something tedious like using one spell to get past all traps ever.
Keep it in mind that not all games are happy-go-lucky pull-it-out-of-my-arse-as-necessary affairs. Some people like to play actual game modules, though ghost along knows why, which have a defined plot (choo! choo!) and probably an adventure path. Some gamemasters like to spend quite a bit of work developing their campaign worlds and adventures and don't account for major NPCs expiring by rude surprise. And it's not up to you to say "oh well, that sounds like fucking fun to me, let's go!" Just because that shit would fly at your table doesn't mean it'll work at anyone else's.
53. Do you agree that a competent GM is essential equipment, like dice?
No. Lots of GMs start out just learning, trying to have fun with their friends. Not everybody steps behind the shield (or pizza box, whatever) and immediately dons the mantle of Master Storyteller.
54. Then all of D&D is abusable, right?
D&D isn't one single set of rules. There's dozens of supplements, half-a-dozen editions, magazine articles, homebrewed stuff, fucking optional rules...and not all of it is abusable. Some of it, certainly. Maybe a fair chunk of it, there's a lot of basic criticism just on the standard AD&D design. But I wouldn't say all of it.
55. Again in case you missed it: Are you trying to prove "abusability period"? or "a subjective level of abusability Ancient History considers unacceptable"?
I think we covered objective, inarguable abusability back on page 1, post 1. Your rule has the potential to give an overwhelming bonus. That can be abused.
"43. As Charm--why would the GM design an NPC whose range of possible available (non-magicked) behavior included things he didn't want that NPC (un-magicked) to do?"
"That's a strange sort of argument; most NPCs aren't pre-programmed robots that can only do a few set functions and only give certain rote responses to inputs. This isn't a JRPG where the PCs ask questions off a menu or anything. The whole point of tabletop RPGs is a greater level of interaction with characters and the play environment."
55. Are you saying that you assume all NPCs are infinitely malleable?
I'm saying that NPCs need not have rote responses.
56. Do you design NPCs knowing that (absent magic) there are things they will never do?
Never is a strong word. In real life, I feel there's very few things people would not do if the circumstances were right, and I try to give my characters the same consideration. Granted, in
normal circumstances there are things NPCs would never do...but adventures are not normal circumstances.
57. Did you know I did?
Did what?
"(I don't have any podcasts of my games)"
"Really? I could have sworn I saw a video of it somewhere up on the web. My bad then."
I do have videos, if they're now available as podcasts that's news to me. But that's not important.
I probably construed those as podcasts. Anyway, I agree it's not important.
" 45. So how can you describe a result as inevitable (mutual disarm) (which you did) if you accept that it doesn't always happen? That's a contradiction. Inevitable means it always happens."
"I'm going to need to ask for a link to me saying "inevitable." I don't recall saying that. "
"And from that simulationist level, it fails - because most sword fights, both in real life and fiction, do not end with the master swordsmen disarming each other and continuing on with tooth and fist. "
You claimed that the rule would ("most" of the time) lead to this consequence, when really it is one of many possible. Swordmen considering a strike to disarm or one person getting disarmed is actually a fairly common thing.
No link, and apparently no use of the word "inevitable." You could just admit you're wrong every now and then, y'know. There's no shame in it.
Re: Disarming - I agree that in real life fencers do disarm people from time to time. But it doesn't happen
all the time, and it's usually a matter of skill and experience.
58. Do you contend this mutual disarmament result would happen "most" of the time?
59. If so, prove it. If not, what did you mean?
If you had someone that figured out disarming was an exceptionally easy tactic, they could abuse it all the time and combats would either be very short and/or the gamemaster might start having NPCs disarm PCs, in which case you get into a bit of
Knights of the Dinner Table-style madness where fights become huge disarm contests.
And that's leaving out a big boss fight going south quickly when you disarm Orcus of his wand or something in round 1.
As with all abuse, I'm not saying it's going to happen. But it has the potential to happen.
""Shitting fit" isn't calling names; I think it's a pretty accurate description of someone that spends the better part of six pages on a rant, refusing to admit he's wrong about anything, and accusing all and sundry of being liars and idiots. "
"shitting fit" is still an insult and you insulted me based on bad premises:
You think I called someone a liar wrongly without evidence but didn't think to ask for that evidence?
Instant chewtoy.
You think I called someone an idiot without evidence but didn't think to ask for that evidence?
Instant chewtoy.
Okay, so you think
you have the inalienable right to call someone an idiot or a liar based on nothing but your understanding, but you insist everyone else has to beg you for evidence before calling you on it? What the hell, man?
Plus you call refusing to agree with people I actually disagree with (yes, I could agree with the moron who thinks Doyle doesn't exist or the guy who thinks no altruistic behavior could ever happen or that most swordfights would end in mutual disarmament but then we'd both be wrong, instead of just you--bad outcome) a moral failing worthy of talking smack
I think refusing to realize you're wrong is a personal failing.
Also you decided my rational defense was a "rant" which is a word that means "saying a lot of things that aren't Ancient History's opinion"
Your "rational defense" has consisted mostly of feeling insulted because people didn't get you, failing hard at a rules challenge, arguing about it when people noticed you failed, and refusing to acknowledge the objective failings in your rules when they were pointed out to you. You've changed the subject, evaded the subject, attacked the people looking at the subject, insulted pretty most of the people in this thread and the two previous ones...yeah, I feel pretty good about describing that as ranting.
If I had responded to it, would that have made you happy?
It would make me happy if you could stop insulting everyone that doesn't automatically agree with you.
D) MOST IMPORTANTLY: If you thought I was attempting to change the subject (I like the subject, why would I change it?) then the appropriate thing to do would be to as me questions to establish my motives, not lurk and then spring this retroactive judgment on me months later.
Dude, what? Quit trying to change the subject! Read back. I purposefully kept out of the cluster-fuck that was the first thread, except to warn you about the nature of this place. You're the one that popped on later when they brought up your name again; I made this thread based off that one after the original thread got so bogged down that people were missing the point, which is
your rule sucks.
60. Which of those words do you think I did not mean? Quote me.
Zak S. wrote:I will assume you are not trolling: please re-read my comments up to this point and if you do not see where I say that, ask a question and I will clarify.
For a dude that's big on people asking you questions before they post anything:
1) You never clarify anything in your posts,
2) You never ask anyone else to clarify what they mean before calling them an idiot or a liar
Putting an obligation on someone else that you yourself don't adhere to is arguing in bad faith.
61. Are you saying that when I get attacked and called names, that attempting to address that attack is "changing the subject"?
If you address that attack instead of addressing the subject then...yeah. You'll notice that when I proved your rule sucked, I did it in one post and didn't refer to any of the particular unkind words you said about me.
"Please scroll up to earlier in this post concerning "charm spells allow a saving throw," which we've addressed repeatedly and at length and which I believe you've never acknowledged and keep ignoring because you continually bring the same point up again. "
As we've established above, I don't understand why you think a saving throw is somehow a better defense than all the things that have to happen in order for my mechanic to have the Charm effect on someone. I haven't ignored that--I have asked repeatedly for you to clarify it and am still asking now.
I've addressed this every single time you've brought it up. Go scroll up in this thread! I did it again!
So, same question again:
"
ignoring an answer is not a fault unless the person again later begs the same question that was an answer to.
49. If you believe I ever did that to you: quote me."
Immediately above, where you ask about saving throws. We've been over saving throws. Repeatedly. You might not
like the answer because you've got it in your head that a saving throw is a quaint formality or something, but there it is. Do I really need to bring out the rape example again?
"I still consider it a personal failing, however. "
Yeah and I consider a billion things you do a personal failing but I'm only sticking to things that I can prove and that get in the way of fact finding.
Fair enow.
" Do I get to pick an arbitrary point before you were belligerent and get to ignore everything after that? Because I think I've been a fairly good sport so far."
I don't know what this is meant to mean. As soon as you say "shitting fit" you lose the right to complain. If you would like a question answered, you can ask.
Okay. You're choosing an arbitrary point after which you think can insult me freely and ignore what I say because I used "shitting fit" to describe you without asking for clarification first; given that, do you think it would be unfair if I used the exact same logic to ignore and belittle you at will after
you got belligerent and insulting first? Because I can ignore everything you've said after the point and treat you as an unrepentant asshat if you really want me to, and I'd just be using your own avowed personal ethics to justify it.
"This is awesome for a "power fantasy" game and totally shits all over players who are into it for a tactical thinking exercise where your choices are supposed to matter. "
Saying my game "shits" on players--my own players, and myself--is an insult then you have now been informed.
Dude, you got insulted when someone called your games a tactical exercise.
You said right here that's not your kind of game. So how the fuck can it be an insult against you and your players to say that the rule you wrote
when used by an entirely different group of people might not be perfect, when you've pretty much admitted that much already?
Also, me explaining to Archmage all the things he got wrong is not a "hissy cow". Also if you thought all these things, your private messages of polite counsel at that time to me seem, in retrospect, exceptionally smarmy and dishonest.
Honestly, I didn't even give passing glance to what you were arguing about, I was just trying to deliver a polite warning. How silly of me!
In fact, I'd say this is the headshot for this whole damn discussion. Archmage got some details of my game wrong and said it "shit" on people and then I came in and explained the actual details and you think Archmage is blameless. That means you're out of your mind. He's not allowed to make such an insulting assumption about someone he could easily just write to without asking. That's deeply intellectually dishonest. He wanted to type more than he wanted to type the truth. If you stand behind him on that: no wonder you think all this other crazy stuff.
I don't always agree with what Archmage says, but I agree with his right to say it, and without needing permission or clarification from you. If he's wrong, he's got a right to
be wrong, just like you had a right to come along and correct him.
Except...he's not wrong! You got insulted about something and rushed to defend it, but he was talking about something that very explicitly wasn't your group or playstyle. And everything that's flowed out of that has been based on your misunderstanding and unbelievable pretentiousness.
I didn't PM them, but I did, in every case, make sure there was no literal interpretation of their words that couldn't be taken as stupid before calling someone "stupid".
I call bullshit. You won't even acknowledge that the rules you posted have mechanics that are objectively shown to be broken. You belittle people for disagreeing with you, plain and simple. Case in fucking point:
I called "stupid" or a "liar" and you doubt my evidence--ask for it and you'll get it
Okay. You've accused me of being stupid. Give me some provable evidence that doesn't equate to "AH disagrees with what I said."