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

[Prak]

The only real problem is that game designers are people too.

Sig'd.

[virgil]

1) There are already rules for 'aid another'.
2) This largely duplicates the effects of Inspire Competence.
3) There is a rule for 'Masterwork Tool' that indicates it would grant a +2 bonus on a check.
4) I'm not sure if this is in the SRD, but I'm certain it was in the Core Books

It's an incredibly stupid and narrow-minded assumption that everyone is playing versions of D&D game with these rules.

Then you are a troll. Previous experience here and this thread's posts before you jumped in have well established that your rules do not match that of anyone here or what is written in any book.

When defending your rule, the burden of proof is on you, with something more elaborate than "clearly you can see that you are wrong." You are not forthcoming with relevant house-rules, and are surprised when people don't know that there's a cumulative maximum bonus of +10 in your game (or whatever).

Just to top it all off, the aid another rule is in all ways superior to your musical instruments (small) rule, even after converting to your resolution system.

[pragma]

I also think the Den's tone is one of the worst ways to promulgate that kind of criticism

The reason for such a tradition is a rejection of passive aggression in favor of active aggression. We like to think that such reduces the echo-chamber effect of internet forums and helps to prevent groupthink. Not that the Den doesn't have its share of echoey groupthoughts, but that share is reduced due to out proud hostility and profligate profanity.

I think that you're saying "the den harnesses the power of ad hominem to get people to double down on their positions and, in this way, helps to elucidate the difference between opposing viewpoints. Even better, sometimes those viewpoints are resolved to a true answer because the Den talks mostly about rules which can be objectively measured against genre tropes."

I have two responses to that idea:

1) Even though forcing people to double down by calling them a twatrocket is good for identifying disagreements, I think it's bad for resolving them. The more I feel attacked, the less I'm willing to say "you know, that guy who threatened to eat my offspring has a point." I think it's tough admitting you're wrong even without the barrier of admitting it to child-muncher.

I don't think that means its a wrong culture to have -- this place made me so excited that I'm talking to the goddamn internet after years of effective hiatus -- but it's a tricky tradeoff to make people angry enough to stand up for themselves while safe enough to back down to a concensus.

That said, I'm game to concede that the Den's norms work for the Den.

2) With that concession, we're faced with the problem that the Den's tone might help change minds here, but not necessarily in WOTC-land or Catalyst-ville where the discussions here might do some good. The point I was calling out in my original post is that getting ideas out of the Den and into the rest of the world relies on others navigating our tone; Den evangelism is made more difficult by the way stuff is said here.

[Red_Rob]

However, you are quite correct in that the Den's usual actively hostile tone where "go suck a barrel of cocks" translates to roughly "and a good morning to you too, sir (or ma'am)" does not go over well with non-Denizens. But usually that isn't a problem. On the 'Den I swear freely. Elsewhere on the internet I write much more formally. Newcomers to the Den are initially shocked, but either become acclimated or shortly decide that the pro profanity mass flaming environment is just too hostile for them.

Sometimes I do think the Den's readiness to belittle someone at the same time as critiquing their argument hinders the conversation. I'm reminded of a vlog by Gunpoint developer Tom Francis about why he stopped getting into internet arguments. Once you insult someone you automatically prevent them from agreeing with your point because then they are also agreeing with the insult.

[Cyberzombie]

So, what the shit fuck exactly are you talking about mutating the game into something that isn't recognizable by a normal person? What part of that is recognizable by a normal person?

That's a whole separate issue actually, but I think that making a bunch of weird ass PC races is not good for the game either. Forgotten Realms has consistently been the most popular setting and it's also the most generic fantasy. Mainstream may be boring to some people, but it's also the most popular. D&D should be something that the average person who has watched LotR will recognize and something you can play without getting too deeply invested in a bunch of rules jargon.

Yeah. And that's not what makes a bad game designer, because then proofreaders and playtesters go "Hey, technically this rule indicates that anyone with a 10+ dex should take an instrument to market with them to help with bargaining, is that intended behavior?" It's simple enough to go "Oh, yeah, that's not what I meant. Let me clarify that." or "Yeah, that's intended behavior. Let me mention that in setting stuff."

What makes a bad game designer is if they respond "NO IT DOESN'T THE RULE'S PERFECT BUT PEOPLE DON'T USE IT BECAUSE REASONS YOU'RE AN ASSHOLE YOU'RE FIRED."

The issue isn't about that specific rule and if it's perfect or if we should change it. By all means if there's a minor change that you know about and can make, go for it. But there's going to be other problematic rules just like it. You're going to have problems like that in an RPG, you can't realistically expect to snuff them all out, not on the low budgets that RPGs are designed with and the lack of top-quality personnel.

Thinking back on all the RPGs I've played, there isn't a single one I can think of that didn't have horrible rules flaws. If there's one thing you should take away from the whole thing, it's this: If you want your game to actually run with any semblance of functionality, it's important for the GM to not be a rules robot. You go down the rules robot path, you're never going to be happy. You're always going to be angry at the designers for leaving out a clause or comma somewhere, you're going to let minor problems escalate into massive ones and both you and your players are going to be miserable as you let yourself get run over by every scheming rules lawyer out there.

In fact, I think the DMG should have in bold print "Don't be a rules robot" on page 1. The PHB should include on page 1, don't be an annoying rules lawyer. People need to understand that RPG budgets are low and that there's going to be lots of mistakes, flaws and oversights. If you put blind faith in the designers to get everything right, you're always going to be disappointed, and really, who wants to always live in disappointment? I certainly don't. I want to have fun and I won't do that being a rules robot.

Sometimes I do think the Den's readiness to belittle someone at the same time as critiquing their argument hinders the conversation. I'm reminded of a vlog by Gunpoint developer Tom Francis about why he stopped getting into internet arguments. Once you insult someone you automatically prevent them from agreeing with your point because then they are also agreeing with the insult.

This is such an excellent point.

[Zak S]

but you get to understand that Musical Instrument (small) isn't a rule intended for general consumption

Duh.

It's a sign of your total. Massive. Drooling. Lack of brainspace that I've had to say this many times in every single conversation we've had at the Den, and then said it, and then you forgot that I said it: you guys and people like you can play with whatever rules you want. Me and my group and everyone like us can play with our rules because we play a game that is unlike yours. When I publish something it isn't mandatory to buy--it's there for people who want to use it.

And if those people are me, or (like the many satisfied customers I hear from) close enough to me that my rules work for their group, then I've done a good thing to help them with their game and that's all I need to do.

The fact that the "BUT YOUR RULES AREN'T UNIVERSALLY APPLICABLE!!!" thing is still getting trotted out is evidence that you are either unbelievably dishonest or unbelievably stupid. Read the posts you're responding to you epic fuck.

[nockermensch]

@Pragma, Red Bob and Cyberzombie Re: I think you guys are being too mean to people on the Internet.

First, there's this quote:

I go to sites where people are crucifying me on the internet, and I'm not logged in, people don't know I'm there, and I still read all those posts. I think that's something that we, as an R&D department, are very cognizant of.

This is Mike Marketroid Mearls we're talking about, so it well in the realms of possibility that he's lying. But here's the guy admitting he reads hostile content about him on the internet. I'd find hilarious if he actually reads the Den and if the huge rollback that Next represents in relation to everything 4th edition was in part caused because all the shit we fling here.

Duh.

It's a sign of your total. Massive. Drooling. Lack of brainspace that I've had to say this many times in every single conversation we've had at the Den, and then said it, and then you forgot that I said it: you guys and people like you can play with whatever rules you want. Me and my group and everyone like us can play with our rules because we play a game that is unlike yours. When I publish something it isn't mandatory to buy--it's there for people who want to use it.

And if those people are me, or (like the many satisfied customers I hear from) close enough to me that my rules work for their group, then I've done a good thing to help them with their game and that's all I need to do.

The fact that the "BUT YOUR RULES AREN'T UNIVERSALLY APPLICABLE!!!" thing is still getting trotted out is evidence that you are either unbelievably dishonest or unbelievably stupid. Read the posts you're responding to you epic fuck.

See how Zak is starting to sound like us already? He's being all tsundere now, but next time he'll add some disclaimers or shit to things he creates.

[OgreBattle]

Now what hentai doujin would best fit the flow of this thread

[Kaelik]

The fact that the "BUT YOUR RULES AREN'T UNIVERSALLY APPLICABLE!!!" thing is still getting trotted out is evidence that you are either unbelievably dishonest or unbelievably stupid. Read the posts you're responding to you epic fuck.

They are reading the posts they are responding to.

It is those posts, where you allege that everyone that this rule doesn't work for is a racist dead child taunting asshole who is a bad person, that cause people to try to explain to you that your rule is in fact a shitty rule for shitty racist people like you.

[Kaelik]

Now what hentai doujin would best fit the flow of this thread

Sorry I had to really reach for the Haruhi/Lucky Star thing, I got nothing for you on this one.

[Username17]

So, what the shit fuck exactly are you talking about mutating the game into something that isn't recognizable by a normal person? What part of that is recognizable by a normal person?

That's a whole separate issue actually, but I think that making a bunch of weird ass PC races is not good for the game either.

No. It is not a separate issue. The conceits of RPGs are in fact really weird, and not at all recognizable by a normal person. In fact, saying "In this game, playing a song at the start of introductions makes social encounters go more your way, so everyone acts like Celtic bards. There's even a fucking class called "Bard" that specializes in doing that." is not a difficult concept to get across at all. Certainly, it's way less weird than "In this game, you get better at reading books for killing things, so you'll want to chase after and murder fleeing giant rats so that your book learning abilities go up."

If you can explain kill experience to a normal person, you can explain musical intro bonuses. The reverse is in no way true.

-Username17

[Cyberzombie]

If you can explain kill experience to a normal person, you can explain musical intro bonuses. The reverse is in no way true.

Given how prevalent killing stuff for XP is in like every video game ever, I highly doubt that. Hell, even FPS gamers are used to XP systems where getting kills rewards them with levels which unlock new options. When you're using a mechanic that is in Call of Duty and Diablo, that's about as mainstream as you can get.

If you tell them that your game plays like a musical, people will give you weird looks. I mean come on man, that shit is just ridiculous and stupid. I don't know what kind of players you try to attract to your games, but I tend to go for the people that like Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones, comic books and video game RPGs. I don't see ripping off the style of a Disney musical as doing anything but turning off potential players in mass numbers.

[Username17]

If you can explain kill experience to a normal person, you can explain musical intro bonuses. The reverse is in no way true.

Given how prevalent killing stuff for XP is in like every video game ever, I highly doubt that. Hell, even FPS gamers are used to XP systems where getting kills rewards them with levels which unlock new options. When you're using a mechanic that is in Call of Duty and Diablo, that's about as mainstream as you can get.

If you tell them that your game plays like a musical, people will give you weird looks. I mean come on man, that shit is just ridiculous and stupid. I don't know what kind of players you try to attract to your games, but I tend to go for the people that like Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones, comic books and video game RPGs. I don't see ripping off the style of a Disney musical as doing anything but turning off potential players in mass numbers.

Shorter Cyberzombie:


Basically, you get to either pull your elitist one-true-way bullshit, or you get to lecture people about being open minded. You can't have it both ways, asshole.

-Username17

[Dean]

Pragma and Red_Rob. You are wrong. The idea that no one will admit they are wrong if people are mean to them is bullshit. People find the act itself of someone disagreeing with them hostile and will almost never admit to being wrong anyway. Admitting you are wrong and realizing you are wrong are two different things and it is solely the latter that this forum is based on. I haven't ever ended a thread with a concession speech nor been in a thread where I got to do a victory lap but I've definitely lost many arguments and won a few others. When someone tells you you're wrong and proves it you just learn from it and don't be wrong about that thing in the future. The insults don't impede communication if anything they soften the blow of actual argument by creating a humorous subculture around someone calling you an ignorant blowhard for the times when you are actually being an ignorant blowhard.

The only people you know are worthless aren't the people throwing insults they are the people who say the same thing over and over again even after they've been exhaustively proved wrong like Silva or Shitmuffin. If you think telling those people they are clever and pretty in between proving them wrong would be any more likely to make them admit their own failures then you haven't been paying attention.

[momothefiddler]

If you want your game to actually run with any semblance of functionality, it's important for the GM to not be a rules robot. You go down the rules robot path, you're never going to be happy.

Sure. I mean, it can be a fun exercise every once in a while to play all the rules exactly as written, but that's a comedy of errors thing. In general, I agree with this point.

But pretending that's any excuse for writing shitty rules is missing the whole point. Sure, if you're served a plate of shit and a plate of peas, you're probably better off eating the peas and leaving the shit, but that doesn't mean it's okay to serve shit at your restaurant as long as you also serve peas.

Given a shitty rule, it's important to adjudicate it in a non-shitty way (and, to be fair, deciding that everyone plays music as part of negotiations in this world isn't necessarily shitty). But using that as a justification for writing the shitty rule in the first place is basically saying that a rule's not broken if the MC can fix it. If only there were a name for that argument or something.

[pragma]

@Pragma, Red Bob and Cyberzombie Re: I think you guys are being too mean to people on the Internet.

First, there's this quote:

I go to sites where people are crucifying me on the internet, and I'm not logged in, people don't know I'm there, and I still read all those posts. I think that's something that we, as an R&D department, are very cognizant of.

It's a sign of your total. Massive. Drooling. Lack of brainspace ...

See how Zak is starting to sound like us already? He's being all tsundere now, but next time he'll add some disclaimers or shit to things he creates.

I'm not sure I understand how Zak is starting to sound like us. This post doesn't look much different from the previous pages. That said, if he puts some caveats in the rules he publishes then we'll be moving towards saner game worlds.

I find the Mearls quote kind of convincing: I think the Den's style makes it a more interesting read than RPG rules dissection would be otherwise. And I can see it swaying spectators who don't have a horse in the game. However, we would most like to sway people who have horses in the game, and I we spend a lot of time very directly insulting them which my personal experience suggests won't get anyone to change their minds.

[Krusk]

No, dude, people are genuinely surprised that you, as a published game designer,

Since when is he a published game designer and not some asshole with a blog? Has anyone paid him to design something, and if so what is the title because that is fodder for the best drunken reviews ever. Yes I will assume without seeing it is bad. The only two examples of his work I've seen make me confident in that statement.

[Cyberzombie]

But pretending that's any excuse for writing shitty rules is missing the whole point.

Here's a challenge: Name one RPG with perfect rules.

You can't, because such an RPG does not exist. I'm not giving excuses for writing bad rules, I'm saying that bad rules are a fact of life and you need to learn to live with them. When we compare good RPG rules versus bad RPG rules, we are always comparing games with flaws, often very big flaws. Shadowrun has a totally non-fuctional matrix, D&D 3E has a huge power disparity between noncasters and casters. Obviously getting better rules is certainly a good thing, but as a gaming group (especially as a DM) you better be prepared to deal with imperfect rules if you want your game to function. Even the very best game you pick is going to have a number of significant flaws in its rules.

And the important logical conclusion from that isn't that we should stop insulting Mike Mearl's bad rules, but rather that because rules are expected to have serious flaws, DMs should stop obeying them blindly.

Basically, you get to either pull your elitist one-true-way bullshit, or you get to lecture people about being open minded. You can't have it both ways, asshole.

If you're talking solely about your personal campaign setting, where you want to run it rules robot style, then that's fine. If you're talking about your own personal circle of friends who think that D&D: the musical is a great idea, then that's cool too. I'm not saying what you should or shouldn't run for your group. Personally I wouldn't want to play in a game like that, because it sounds dumb but whatever, if designing your game world in a rules robot, absurdist methodology works for you and your PCs enjoy it, then go for it.

But the open-mindedness ends when you go beyond your own personal group and friends. If you're talking about what you think the average D&D person will like and relate to, then I think you're very mistaken in how accepting they're going to be of your musical-based world.

[souran]

No. It is not a separate issue. The conceits of RPGs are in fact really weird, and not at all recognizable by a normal person. In fact, saying "In this game, playing a song at the start of introductions makes social encounters go more your way, so everyone acts like Celtic bards. There's even a fucking class called "Bard" that specializes in doing that." is not a difficult concept to get across at all.

-Username17

Actually, by your own freaking logic a world were people both CAN get a bonus from playing a musical insrument prior to a social encounter and KNOW that this is the result is a world WITHOUT MUSIC.

If you know that the instant somebody starts humming a jaunty tune you will fall under the sway of even their crappy argument, music becomes a sin of the highest order. Nobles don't learn the harp, they kill their court musicians for fear of being influienced by them. Opening negociations with a song is akin to an act of war. "Bard" becomes like introducing yourself as "social deviant megolomaniac." Honest shop keepers post signs that say "no singing, dancing, story telling, or associated skills on premesis" and dishonest shop keepers do the same but softly humm in the corner, just loudly enough for their patrons to hear.

Becuase if OBVIOUSLY the NPCS will figure out that playing music helps themselves get their way, then surely they will also figure out that OTHER PEOPLE playing music causes their will to fade. The only appropriate time for music, in the world of the Den's "D&D: The musical" line of logic is in very intimate settings with people you trust with your life.

While, I actually find this setting conciet kind of intriguing, the idea that it is the DEFAULT for introducing a rule/item/class/whatever that gives a bonus to diplomacy from playing an instrument is rediculous in the extreme. AS IS the idea that the bonus in the first place turns the game into D&D the musical.

[momothefiddler]

And the important logical conclusion from that isn't that we should stop insulting Mike Mearl's bad rules, but rather that because rules are expected to have serious flaws, DMs should stop obeying them blindly.

...And yet you're using this argument as a defense of a shit rule by a shit rulewriter and his shit defense that if people use it and bad things happen, that's their fault for using it? Are you agreeing that it's okay to write shit rules because people can just not use them? Did you miss my whole sarcastic thing about Oberoni?

Actually, by your own freaking logic a world were people both CAN get a bonus from playing a musical insrument prior to a social encounter and KNOW that this is the result is a world WITHOUT MUSIC.

If you know that the instant somebody starts humming a jaunty tune you will fall under the sway of even their crappy argument, music becomes a sin of the highest order. Nobles don't learn the harp, they kill their court musicians for fear of being influienced by them. Opening negociations with a song is akin to an act of war. "Bard" becomes like introducing yourself as "social deviant megolomaniac." Honest shop keepers post signs that say "no singing, dancing, story telling, or associated skills on premesis" and dishonest shop keepers do the same but softly humm in the corner, just loudly enough for their patrons to hear.

Becuase if OBVIOUSLY the NPCS will figure out that playing music helps themselves get their way, then surely they will also figure out that OTHER PEOPLE playing music causes their will to fade. The only appropriate time for music, in the world of the Den's "D&D: The musical" line of logic is in very intimate settings with people you trust with your life.

While, I actually find this setting conciet kind of intriguing, the idea that it is the DEFAULT for introducing a rule/item/class/whatever that gives a bonus to diplomacy from playing an instrument is rediculous in the extreme. AS IS the idea that the bonus in the first place turns the game into D&D the musical.

And that's why, in the real world, it's illegal to take showers.

[Username17]

Actually, by your own freaking logic a world were people both CAN get a bonus from playing a musical insrument prior to a social encounter and KNOW that this is the result is a world WITHOUT MUSIC.

If you know that the instant somebody starts humming a jaunty tune you will fall under the sway of even their crappy argument, music becomes a sin of the highest order.

Look, social interaction is not an aggressive act against someone for the most part. If someone gets a better result on you, you like them better. Which means that people who score high diplomantic results are people you like more. That means that people seek out situations where other people get high diplomacy results on them and avoid situations where other people get bad diplomacy results on them.

So you're totally fucking wrong. In such a world, a diplomatic introduction without musical accompaniment is simply less likely to go over well, so people would tend to avoid even bothering to talk to people who weren't prepared to play a harmonica interlude before making their case. If someone wanted to convince you of something, but they didn't have a violin prepared, you'd look on that exactly the way people in our world react to people who can't be bothered to comb their hair or put on shoes. They probably aren't going to convince you, so why bother even hearing them out?

The idea that people would react to the prospect of potentially liking another human being the way they react to potentially being stabbed in the belly is so fucking alien that I don't even know where to begin. That's like double chocolate insanity with whipped cream and sprinkles.

-Username17

[Stubbazubba]

The idea that no one will admit they are wrong if people are mean to them is bullshit.

Citation needed.

People find the act itself of someone disagreeing with them hostile and will almost never admit to being wrong anyway.

And the next question you should be asking yourself is "why is that?" and it's been answered pretty thoroughly: Our opinions and beliefs are products of our worldview, which is a product of our life experience, which is the cornerstone of our concept of self. When you criticize someone's opinion, you criticize the end result of everything they have done and believe themselves to be. Yeah, it's perceived as hostility because, on a psychological level, it is.

That doesn't mean that overtly insulting them on top of it doesn't make them even less likely to accept the criticism.

Admitting you are wrong and realizing you are wrong are two different things and it is solely the latter that this forum is based on.

This is true, but it doesn't mean consensus-building rhetoric is BS. It just takes more effort and actual empathy and sincerity than most people are willing to put into debate, and it's not what they teach in school. See also Rogerian argumentation.

The insults don't impede communication if anything they soften the blow of actual argument by creating a humorous subculture around someone calling you an ignorant blowhard for the times when you are actually being an ignorant blowhard.

Once you're used to it and recognize it for what it is, sure. But that's a cultural thing; the insults we use aren't actually the insults they sound like. Once you stick through being on the receiving end of Frank or Kaelik's barrage of ad hominem, you realize that they typically don't hold grudges, and in a week or two it could have never happened. That's a cultural oddity that is outside the norm for social activity. Normally, if someone says, "I hate you because you think X and would kill you myself if I got the chance," you would probably get a restraining order. Here, we roll with that not because we're tough, but because we know that's not what anyone is actually saying, regardless of the words they use.

So, sure, once you have rearranged your reading skills to filter out the empty insults and focus on substance because you're acclimated to the Den's atmosphere, then they don't impede communication of ideas (so long as someone is actually explaining why you're wrong in between the insults).

What it does impede is consensus-building, though. This being an internet forum, we don't need consensus-building, obviously, which is why the Den works as...whatever it is. It's a place where we come and hash out everything about games and end up learning all sorts of stuff through it, it's the Socratic method with elves and rape threats.

But that doesn't mean it's a non-dysfunctional culture, either. As the annual "hey why don't we work together?" threads tend to point out, no one thinks that being on a project with a bunch of other Denners would be very enjoyable. We actively discourage validation and consensus-building. Two people congenially agreeing over anything makes us suspicious of groupthink. Groupthink's a real problem in the world, but the answer isn't Randian individualism, except on the internet.

There are actually effective rhetorical strategies, they're just not the ones we think they are. They too have their limitations, you can't guarantee anything in life, but saying there's nothing more effective out there than Den culture just isn't true.

[/anti-Den culture]

Screw you, dean. Your unsubstantiated conclusions rest on your own internet armchair ignorance of sociology, psychology, and rhetoric.

[nockermensch]

I'm not sure I understand how Zak is starting to sound like us. This post doesn't look much different from the previous pages. That said, if he puts some caveats in the rules he publishes then we'll be moving towards saner game worlds.

After a portal to stupid dimension opened and Zak arrived here for the first time, he resisted being mean to us, trying to take the high road for what seemed to be forever. Now he's merrily throwing the barrel of cocks around.

I find the Mearls quote kind of convincing: I think the Den's style makes it a more interesting read than RPG rules dissection would be otherwise. And I can see it swaying spectators who don't have a horse in the game. However, we would most like to sway people who have horses in the game, and I we spend a lot of time very directly insulting them which my personal experience suggests won't get anyone to change their minds.

There are some studies that show that people can read arguments and facts they strongly disagree with, but still be unconsciously influenced by them weeks/months later. [citation needed here. I remember reading about these, but I can't find them now]

If you go to [REDACTED] or [REDACTED] where the board culture is to kiss the ass of any published designer, then you'll get only sycophant "yes sirs" to everything, or at best you'll have to peel Vecna knows how many layers of forced politeness and passive-agressiveness to find actual criticism. If Mearls comes here and see cocks being thrown everywhere after something he designed, he can at once see what the problems are.

Finally, people being angry at stupid things isn't wrong. When politicians see a violent protest on the streets they don't usually double down on whatever action caused the protests. When they do, it's usually a sign that said politicians are even worse than you imagined.

I'm saying that bad rules are a fact of life and you need to learn to live with them. When we compare good RPG rules versus bad RPG rules, we are always comparing games with flaws, often very big flaws. Shadowrun has a totally non-fuctional matrix, D&D 3E has a huge power disparity between noncasters and casters. Obviously getting better rules is certainly a good thing, but as a gaming group (especially as a DM) you better be prepared to deal with imperfect rules if you want your game to function. Even the very best game you pick is going to have a number of significant flaws in its rules.

Zombie, you're being stupid. The focus here isn't on DM advice and support. This is mainly a game design forum. Of course there aren't perfect games and of course DMs need to learn how to deal with the shitty rules they're given. People here will in the meanwhile keep throwing shit at bad rules and examining what makes good rules.


@souran: Do you come from a planet that killed all the Diplomats? No? Then shut your mouth. People in RL know that there are skills that influence their decisions (advertising, diplomacy, selling techniques) and their reaction isn't want to destroy them. People on the top of society learn to use these (or hire users) while people at the bottom envy and admire them. Your strawman point start by postulating a different human nature. That's also fine, as far as fantasy goes, but you need to explain that humans in your no-music world are fundamentally different from us.

[Cyberzombie]

...And yet you're using this argument as a defense of a shit rule by a shit rulewriter and his shit defense that if people use it and bad things happen, that's their fault for using it? Are you agreeing that it's okay to write shit rules because people can just not use them? Did you miss my whole sarcastic thing about Oberoni?

I'm not really sure where you're getting that I'm defending anything. I actually said earlier in the thread that I didn't think Monte was a good designer.

What I'm doing isn't a defense of bad rules, I'm stating a fact of life. For instance, I advise you that you probably shouldn't go to Iran and preach Christianity because it probably will not end well for you. I'm not defending religious intolerance there, I'm just giving you advice on how to deal with the situation as it is.

If people play RPGs they will run into flawed rules. The instrument rule isn't a perfect rule, but it is a typical rule that you're likely to run into when dealing with RPG social systems. So if people are complaining about how it can destroy their setting, I give them solutions to prevent that, and hopefully prevent their game from self-destructing. Dealing with flawed rules is a reality, and I think it's a very essential skill for DMs and PCs to learn how to best handle them.

[...You Lost Me]

That's great cyber, but everyone realized that already and no one cares.

On this game design forum we're going to talk about designing games. So when a game is designed poorly, we're going to say it's bad and talk about how to make it better, not how PCs/MCs can work around it to make it feel less bad. That is what we were talking about 14 pages ago, so now that you're caught up you can actually participate in the conversation.