Minor game stuff from around the web for commentary...

[Ancient History]

It's a very old, even hallowed problem - the degree to which the rule system drives the game, as opposed to being a vehicle to play it. Most (I'm tempted to say practically all) game systems include a bit of explicit fudging on the part of Mister Cavern to accommodate when the system-as-given would given a wonky or surreal result, yet at the same time it's obviously a poorly-designed system if you have to constantly abandon or patch it.

So for example, in Hackmaster one of the jokes from the comic that made it into the game is that needles were listed on the weapon table as dealing 1/4 point of damage, so technically following the rules-as-written stitching up a wound actually caused damage. For some tables, that's tough but fair - I know one table that even enchanted a healing needle that restored damage instead of dealing it, based on the healing arrow and that was deemed acceptable - for other tables, they simply ignored the needle-damage.

A more serious issue is when the system drives the world, because there's a disconnect in how the world should work and the actual benefits of the subsystems. A good example is spirits with the Movement power in Shadowrun; as Frank likes to point out, those things should be zipping cargo zeppelins along and dramatically changing the setting. Counterbalance that with something like Eberron, where the idea was supposed to be a magicpunk setting but the various bits of the subsystem don't really quite support the setting as it is presented.

Now, neither of these is wrong. You're going to have Mister Cavern making a call when a rule is unclear or gives a strange result; task resolution is one of the MC's jobs. At the same time, you don't want the MC to be making arbitrary rule changes willy-nilly, because you are playing a game that has rules and everyone wants to know what rules they're going to play by - nobody wants to get the last hand of poker after they've anted, discarded, drawn, and bet only to find out that now deuces are wild and half the cards are from an uno deck. Likewise, there's nothing wrong with players trying to work within the rules, or speculating how the rules (if they hold true) would affect the setting.

But it is incumbent upon the game designer to keep this sort of thing in mind, because these are the situations that do crop up. If you don't think ahead a little bit, you're just making a mess for other people - and, in the case of homebrewed rules, yourself - to clean up later.

[Zak S]

In sandlot baseball, the first baseman is allowed to talk to a runner on first.

This means that if the runner on first has a child that dies in a car accident, the first baseman is allowed to taunt the runner with this fact during the game. In many cases, the first basemen has every incentive to do this.

But if the first baseman does this (despite the fact that the rules allow it and incentivize it) then it reveals that the first baseman is an asshole, and his assholery isn't the rule's fault and his assholery is larger than simply the rule and nobody should play with that first baseman.

Even if the rule was then changed so he couldn't talk, he would still be an asshole and should still not be playing in that game. Both as a punitive measure and because this assholery is likely to cause other problems in the game.

The music rule is the same. There is a good use of it and a bad use. The bad use reveals an assholery that was always there.

[Mistborn]

Personally I think the fault lies in rules robot DMs who are all too willing to abandon common sense.

No

Fuck that nonsense, and fuck you specially.

If the rule is stupid it's not fault of the person who wrote the rule, not the people who assumed the game designers actually gave a fuck. Yes most if not all games require signifacant mind caulk to be even remotely playable, that's a big fucking problem that's why this forum exists. So stop trying to derive ought from is, asshole.

This means that if the runner on first has a child that dies in a car accident, the first baseman is allowed to taunt the runner with this fact during the game.

In many cases, the first basemen has every incentive to do this.

But if the first baseman does this (despite the fact that the rules allow it and incentivize it) then it reveals that the first baseman is an asshole, and his assholery isn't the rule's fault and his assholery is larger than simply the rule and nobody should play with that first baseman.

Even if the rule was then changed so he couldn't talk, he would still be an asshole and should still not be playing in that game. Both as a punitive measure and because this assholery is likely to cause other problems in the game.

The music rule is the same. There is a good use of it and a bad use. The bad use reveals an assholery that was always there.

The fact you consider someone playing in a way you dislike equivalent to taunting someone about their child's death is telling.

[Ancient History]

And yet the rule exists, and the assholery of the first baseman is not only permitted, but sacrosanct. If you don't want to encourage assholes in the game, you shouldn't have rules that explicitly encourage and protect asshole behavior.

Now, of course there's always going to be some player that finds new and exciting ways to be an asshole. I remember one particular player that made it their mission in any game to shove another character up their character's ass (it was a running joke between the two). You can't do anything about that except to toss out the player. But if there's a built in power that allows you to access an interdimensional space in your keister, you can't exactly throw shade on them for choosing to take advantage of it. Otherwise you're just crying foul because they're following your rules as written but not your unwritten intentions, and I've never yet penalized a player for failing to be telepathic.

[Zak S]

And yet the rule exists, and the assholery of the first baseman is not only permitted, but sacrosanct. If you don't want to encourage assholes in the game, you shouldn't have rules that explicitly encourage and protect asshole behavior..

It sounds like you didn't read what you're responding to. The rule tests them. (as the rule of free speech tests everyone.) If they fail they test, they get kicked out of the game. "Sacrosanct" doesn't come into it.

It's not like if the rule and the following "asshole behavior" were eliminated, that person would revert to be worth playing with. That first baseman was a jerk even without the rule. The rule just (helpfully) revealed it.

[Prak]

In sandlot baseball

You lost me.

[Mistborn]

It's not like if the rule and the following "asshole behavior" were eliminated, that person would revert to be worth playing with. That first baseman was a jerk even without the rule. The rule just (helpfully) revealed it.

Seriously what the fuck, you're the one who wrote kazoo bonus in the fist place. If diplomats picking up the kazoo is so horrible why did you write a rule that incentivises diplomats to pick up the kazoo.

[PhoneLobster]

I'm seeing a lot of attempts by Justin Bieber and others to "reimagine" his stated rule and methodology for punishing players who dare to use it.

A few points need to be underlined about his crappy rule and methodology.

1) The check is easy (implied DC 10ish, never actually defined because Justin Bieber cannot for his life actually write a rule properly). The cost is tiny. The risk is small AND unlikely. The long term character build resource investment is non-existent. Most D&D characters have a "Dex of 10 or over" most D&D characters have a clear incentive to use this. This means basically ANY player character can benefit from this.

2) It doesn't matter if the bonus is small (never defined BRILLIANT RULE TEXT!!!!). It is a bonus to something you want to do and the cost to obtain it is close enough to free. This means that basically any and all human players WILL buy kazoos "just in case" the moment they see this rule in use at the table. Certainly anyone with a remotely good Dex will, which is typically about half the table and in some cases all of it (entire groups of high Dex characters often associated with player groups that obsess over imaginative tea party "combat acrobatics"). And if you don't admit to that you've never seen human beings playing D&D.

3) Writing a rule that cheaply and easily enables players to do something that you don't want them to do and then offering it to them to use is really fucking stupid. You can quibble all you like about whether you personally think the rule is acceptable, but the idiot who wrote it openly states he doesn't want people using it. It's an actual literal and intended trap option using a definition of trap option completely different to the way we would usually use it around here. More accurately we might consider it a bait option and the trap is "fuck you for taking that bait rule!".

4) Proceeding to then PUNISH players for using the rule you offered them makes you a total asshole and a shitty GM. You can quibble again that you wouldn't do that, but it is Justin Bieber's open and stated intention to do that himself. Initially he was just going to bog down the game focusing on "undesirable" social encounters and excessive instrument set up descriptions and humiliating punitive jokes. Since then he has effectively state he would kick players out of his game for using a rule he invented and offered to them.

I know Souran and Cyberzombie have some weird grognardy/4E hybrid insanity stuff going on where they want to rail against certain very sane and basic ideas about good GMing and good rules design. But I think they are really picking the wrong rule, the wrong methodology and the wrong guy to attempt to defend here.

[Ancient History]

First: Bullshit. I call shifting goalposts.

Second: Including a shibboleth rule makes you more of an asshole than the player that potentially fails it. What kind of a game designer - or gamemaster - are you if the players have to go through the game never knowing when they're going to offend one of your unwritten player tests-of-character and get kicked out of the fucking game? Where's the fairness in that? If you're going to hold players to a standard, at least be fucking honest about it and tell them upfront. Don't spring some bullshit on them where they actually followed the rule you wrote and now because they dared to do that in a way you personally don't agree with they're supposed to walk away from the table.

[...You Lost Me]

In sandlot baseball

You lost me.

What's up.

Also, Zak S, that's got to be the dumbest thing I've ever heard. The rule that allows the first baseman to talk to the runner on first people to gain diplomacy bonuses by playing a musical instrument encourages people to do Bad Things(TM) in order to achieve what they want. Both bad people and good people are encouraged to do those Bad Things(TM), which means the rule is bad and should be thrown out.

You don't write an incentive and then kick people out of your game for following the incentive. That's backwards and completely insane.

EDIT: Ninja'd by AH.

[virgil]

It sounds like you didn't read what you're responding to. The rule tests them. (as the rule of free speech tests everyone.) If they fail they test, they get kicked out of the game. "Sacrosanct" doesn't come into it.

So you made that rule solely as a means for entrapment? That sounds like you're the butt.

[souran]

While I commend your otherwise fine rant, I need to haul you up on this point. We (NPCs in a game God is running) know the bonus list. We've reverse engineered it over the course of our lives. That's why we make bridges out of steel instead of spaghetti, and why people who live in Siberia wear more clothes than those who live in Barbados. Similarly, the NPCs in any game will have an understanding of their game's system.

You could run a game in which that isn't true, but then players will wreck it even worse than they would nornally.

Actually, we don't see a bonus list we see a causal reality. That's exactly the point. We know how to build a bridge, and we know it doesn't work by proclaiming "I build a bridge!" We also don't make daily/hourly checks to see if we make progress. We have a number of things that we know we need to do to build something complex.

We don't make resist cold checks, we suffer time dependent conditions like frostbite or hypothermia, or dehydration in hot climates.

If I shoot at you with a gun, my hitting you is a result of a bunch of factors the major ones I can, with appropriate training, control and correct for. It is not random if I put a bullet in your center of mass.

We use dice in these games because the cost of accounting for all the factors doing all the physics etc is not as easy as saying its random. Also, random helps make it a game...

[Koumei]

I have to say, Dungeons: the Musical sounds like an awesome game.

[Stubbazubba]

The music rule is the same. There is a good use of it and a bad use. The bad use reveals an assholery that was always there.

What, pray tell, would the good use actually look like? Because so far every use has been unappealing to you.

[PhoneLobster]

Actually,

You actually failed completely to interact with his criticism of your asinine idea that NPCs should never be able to observe anything about how their universe works in the slightest.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Second: Including a shibboleth rule makes you more of an asshole than the player that potentially fails it.

Shibboleth Rule has been now added to the Glossary of TGD. This is now canon.

[Koumei]

I'd like to think Aboleths evolve into Shibboleths when exposed to a Water Stone.

[momothefiddler]

stuff

Let's see... your initial point was that NPCs don't see bonuses or make checks. Your most recent post elaborated that we also don't make checks, and that thus "this makes me better at accomplishing my task" is not technically a bonus to a check. You then claim that in the game, PC's actions and the many factors involved are abstracted to checks to make things easier and make it a game.

You've still provided no basis whatsoever for your argument that NPCs don't know what things work better than others (e.g. they don't go out of their way to build bridges out of steel when there's spaghetti to be had) except that they don't get bonuses to their checks because they don't make checks. But your entire point in your most recent post is that checks replace a perfect physics simulation. Are you saying the MC needs to run a physics sim for each NPC, but it's too hard to do that for PCs, so we roll dice? Because that's the only way I can manage to reconcile your arguments here.

[Zak S]

Seriously what the fuck, you're the one who wrote kazoo bonus in the fist place. If diplomats picking up the kazoo is so horrible why did you write a rule that incentivises diplomats to pick up the kazoo.

Because (duh) there are lots of fun and good things that can come of it, too, not just abuse. Just like there are lots of fun and good things that can come of the first baseman being allowed to talk.

So the rule enables fun situations and exposes assholes so they can be eliminated. All good.

[PhoneLobster]

Ridiculously enough it fails even as a "Shibboleth rule".

The whole "it's a trap to identify people to kick out!" thing is a shifting goal post Justin Bieber retrospectively has trundled out to defend his bullshit.

But you can ALSO find him defending against criticisms of "but what if players use the Kazoo bonus in a somehow good way!" with "Oh well then of course I would encourage that because good things are good and then it's not a trap that didn't identify them for kicking out!".

So it doesn't even work as a filter that allows a shitty asshole DM to trap "undesirable" players and filter them out of his shitty game. Because a player using this rule does NOT as Justin Bieber has been advertising intermittently, even reliably convince Justin Bieber to kick them out of Justin Bieber's shitty D&D game.

[Koumei]

I have to say, "allowing people to post" has certainly exposed shitmuffin as an asshole, so there is something to be said for that.

[Zak S]

The music rule is the same. There is a good use of it and a bad use. The bad use reveals an assholery that was always there.

What, pray tell, would the good use actually look like? Because so far every use has been unappealing to you.

A player who likes playing a musician and has cool ideas about how to roleplay that gets to do it and the rule gives the performance situation a little dramatic tension because something (a potential bonus v npcs) is at at stake. See the discussion in the OP on my blog for more detail.

Also: pretty much anyone who didn't grasp that already (or pretended not to) is not thinking this through very hard before typing or not arguing in good faith.

[Zak S]

First: Bullshit. I call shifting goalposts.

Yet, being a stupid person, you forgot to say why.

What kind of a game designer - or gamemaster - are you if the players have to go through the game never knowing when they're going to offend one of your unwritten player tests-of-character and get kicked out of the fucking game?

Everyone does this all their life with every rule or freedom they have. If you suddenly and earnestly spout racist propaganda at the table your fellow players may revise their opinion of you.

The rule has (like most) many characteristics. One of them is it can be abused. It shares this characteristic with many rules (and laws). All such rules are useful as they reveal assholes. It is not the sole reason they exist, but it's a good one. You're talking due to the rule of free speech We don't have that rule so you can be an asshole. We're not all waiting for you to be an asshole, but one of the many things your speech can do is reveal how much of an asshole you are. This is a good thing about free speech.

[Ancient History]

We get your intent. That's fine. We're pointing out that intent does not translate into mechanics. There is a gap between the activity you want the rule to enable and encourage and the range of play it actually permits.

Also, you very explicitly wrote the rule on your blog for the purpose of providing said bonus for said activity; you make no mention of it serving a purpose (primary or secondary) of identifying assholes in your game. So that's goal-shifting. If it was your intent, it was uncommunicated in the rule you wrote.

/edit

Everyone does this all their life with every rule or freedom they have. If you suddenly and earnestly spout racist propaganda at the table your fellow players may revise their opinion of you.

And that would be an unwritten rule, and based on the group dynamics as a whole rather than your individual, subjective assessment. It is nothing like your rule, which you actually set into mechanics that interact with the game system and the state of play.

The rule has (like most) many characteristics. One of them is it can be abused. It shares this characteristic with many rules (and laws). All such rules are useful as they reveal assholes. It is not the sole reason they exist, but it's a good one.

You're trying to justify your rule after the fact by rationalizing why you like it. This is not the original reason you presented this rule. Even if it was your intent that this would be a shibboleth rule from the beginning, trying to explain it in those terms now is indistinguishable from you pulling something out of your ass.

If you're trying to argue that all rules fall under this general category of "if you abuse it, you're an asshole" then we go back to you being a subjective asshole for holding other people to hidden standards.

[Zak S]

We get your intent. That's fine. We're pointing out that intent does not translate into mechanics. There is a gap between the activity you want the rule to enable and encourage and the range of play it actually permits.

Also, you very explicitly wrote the rule on your blog for the purpose of providing said bonus for said activity; you make no mention of it serving a purpose (primary or secondary) of identifying assholes in your game. So that's goal-shifting. If it was your intent, it was uncommunicated in the rule you wrote.

Oh then I'll have to repeat myself because you're unbelievably epically stupid beyond anyone ever in human history:

"the rule has (like most) many characteristics. One of them is it can be abused. It shares this characteristic with many rules (and laws). All such rules are useful as they reveal assholes. It is not the sole reason they exist, but it's a good one. You're talking due to the rule of free speech We don't have that rule so you can be an asshole. We're not all waiting for you to be an asshole, but one of the many things your speech can do is reveal how much of an asshole you are. This is a good thing about free speech."