Someone explain the appeal of Old Man Henderson?

[codeGlaze]

I want to play this game also.

ASK ME FOR A RULE.

My PC wants to involve a can of lard, a bucket of chocolate and three coconuts during the Ritual of Coitus with the princess.


The DM says SHE says "no"!!

What rule lets me do this ANYWAY?! Do I have to roll?

[RadiantPhoenix]

I want to play this game also.

ASK ME FOR A RULE.

My PC wants to involve a can of lard, a bucket of chocolate and three coconuts during the Ritual of Coitus with the princess.


The DM says SHE says "no"!!

What rule lets me do this ANYWAY?! Do I have to roll?

Ooh, let me jump in! (note: #2 and #3 are pretty skeevy, and #1 might be, depending on your game)
Does your game have social rules? If so, use those, if not...
Does your game have combat rules? If so, use those, if not...
Uh, flip a coin to see if you can force her?

[codeGlaze]

I want to play this game also.

ASK ME FOR A RULE.

My PC wants to involve a can of lard, a bucket of chocolate and three coconuts during the Ritual of Coitus with the princess.


The DM says SHE says "no"!!

What rule lets me do this ANYWAY?! Do I have to roll?

Ooh, let me jump in! (note: #2 and #3 are pretty skeevy, and #1 might be, depending on your game)
Does your game have social rules? If so, use those, if not...
Does your game have combat rules? If so, use those, if not...
Uh, flip a coin to see if you can force her?

There's a bard spell that cranks CHA to OVER 9000! ... right?


Oh! Maybe suggestion?
...or how about Remorseless charm...

If those fail there's always 'Eternal Slumber,.

AMIRITE?!
Guys?.... gaiz?

[Zak S]

Zak no matter how many times you whine, cry and demand that we apologise you not going to change the past. This still happened.

So you're assuming, sight unseen, the rulings are bad.

That's not science.

That's just wishing.

You are claiming to generate a complex formal precedence based rules set based entirely on spur of the moment decisions.

You do not get to say "I just get it perfect first time every time! I dare you to prove otherwise. YOU DON'T KNOW ME!".

Because that is a stupid thing to say. Only a very very very stupid person would honestly say that.

I mean the actual competency level to even BEGIN to run a game in that manner with even MARGINAL success requires someone with sufficient intelligence to actually honestly admit that fuck it, sometimes their spur of the moment rulings are not in fact fucking perfect.

I mean holy fuck man, the first step towards wisdom and all that.

Any GM who actually believes they make perfect rulings in that manner is an exceptionally incompetent one. So incompetent that I actually don't think you ARE that bad, if for no other reason than that level of stupidity being statistically unlikely to encounter in real life. You're just blowing far too hard on an internet forum and making a fool of yourself because you don't want to admit you are wrong and maybe even rather confused.

Let's test your theory, lobster.

Ask me for a rule.

That's what you actually said and it's clear from the context of the thread that you thought you would be able to awe PL with the brilliance of your on the spot ruling (because you are apparently just that out of touch). You failed to do that, your ruling failed beyond our wildest imagining. You deserve every bit of scorn you've received for that and then some.

Incorrect: I gave a rule when asked. It works and is still working. The only criticisms of the ruling anyone has given so far are that it results in the game my group wants to play. So: no. You made a terrible mistake and are stupid.

The only way to prove your rule would be to contact members of my group and obtain evidence of the rule making the game worse. You have not done so.

The rule works, and it works well it worked well yesterday and the day before. It wouldn't work for phonelobster but, of course, the entire point of rulings (and theory behind them) is that they allow for the fact that different groups needs different rules. You've failed to make your point and should be embarrassed for being very dumb.

[Zak S]

There isn't much in forum discussions besides quotes. So if I refer you to an actual forum discussion I am quoting.

Linking is not quoting; not in any usage of English, common or academic.

I though that you were smart enough to understand that giving you a thing to click that brought you immediately to a page full of words someone typed was (in terms of rational argument) functionally equivalent to providing those exact same words someone typed inside a little box on the same page. I apologize for not realizing you were too stupid to know that.

At any rate, either way you would like to use English, the more important point remains: there isn't a single genuine objection to anything that I've said that can't be easily refuted with evidence. If you ask for that evidence I will provide it. If you are too dumb or lazy to click a link, when provided, you may ask for the evidence to be-reposted on the same page as the one you're reading. Either way: my argument is sound and you've said nothing that could contradict that given the evidence provided.

[Dean]

Are.. you capable of anything besides self-parody?

That is hilarious. No he actually isn't but in fairness he is actually exceptional at that.

Or as he would say:

Incorrect: My argument is that he can be successful at self parody, some people might agree with that and some might not. This proves my point. If-then, I have demonstrated that I was correct and you should apologize.

[virgil]

Zak no matter how many times you whine, cry and demand that we apologise you not going to change the past. This still happened.

So you're assuming, sight unseen, the rulings are bad.

That's not science.

That's just wishing.

You are claiming to generate a complex formal precedence based rules set based entirely on spur of the moment decisions.

You do not get to say "I just get it perfect first time every time! I dare you to prove otherwise. YOU DON'T KNOW ME!".

Because that is a stupid thing to say. Only a very very very stupid person would honestly say that.

I mean the actual competency level to even BEGIN to run a game in that manner with even MARGINAL success requires someone with sufficient intelligence to actually honestly admit that fuck it, sometimes their spur of the moment rulings are not in fact fucking perfect.

I mean holy fuck man, the first step towards wisdom and all that.

Any GM who actually believes they make perfect rulings in that manner is an exceptionally incompetent one. So incompetent that I actually don't think you ARE that bad, if for no other reason than that level of stupidity being statistically unlikely to encounter in real life. You're just blowing far too hard on an internet forum and making a fool of yourself because you don't want to admit you are wrong and maybe even rather confused.

Let's test your theory, lobster.

Ask me for a rule.

That's what you actually said and it's clear from the context of the thread that you thought you would be able to awe PL with the brilliance of your on the spot ruling (because you are apparently just that out of touch). You failed to do that, your ruling failed beyond our wildest imagining. You deserve every bit of scorn you've received for that and then some.

Incorrect: I gave a rule when asked. It works and is still working. The only criticisms of the ruling anyone has given so far are that it results in the game my group wants to play. So: no. You made a terrible mistake and are stupid.

The only way to prove your rule would be to contact members of my group and obtain evidence of the rule making the game worse. You have not done so.

The rule works, and it works well it worked well yesterday and the day before. It wouldn't work for phonelobster but, of course, the entire point of rulings (and theory behind them) is that they allow for the fact that different groups needs different rules. You've failed to make your point and should be embarrassed for being very dumb.

PL very specifically, and repeatedly, stated that you couldn't come up with a perfect ruling. Do you understand that there is a difference between perfect and 'good enough for your group'? Testing his theory, with no other qualifiers, actually puts the onus on you to provide a ruling that is perfect by his standards. At NO point did PL's theory even mention your group and their ability to function better with your ruling(s) than an official one (or even well enough to not collapse).

[Red_Rob]

Zak did actually reveal why his system works for him; his players are very undemanding when it comes to rules. They don't know the rules, they don't really like the rules, they just want the DM to tell them what they need to roll so they can go back to talking in a funny voice. And if they do notice a rule produces screwy results they aren't really bothered enough to mention it.

Now, this is obviously not true of all groups. But in Zak's group it is, and therefore ad hoc 'rulings' and simple but easy to break subsystems are preferred to more codified but ultimately more robust rule sets.

You may rightly point out that this is never going to fly at some or even most tables. But saying it doesn't work at his table is obviously untrue. IMHO K said it best: "The only real lesson one can learn from Zak's group is that rules really need to be simple enough for slightly drunk adult performers to understand"

[angelfromanotherpin]

I though that you were smart enough to understand that giving you a thing to click that brought you immediately to a page full of words someone typed was (in terms of rational argument) functionally equivalent to providing those exact same words someone typed inside a little box on the same page.

Well, I didn't think you were smart enough to understand that directing someone to 2,000 lines of text and claiming that the specific answer is 'somewheres in there' is not actually the same as actually directing someone to the specific answer by quoting it directly... because it's something you have continually failed to understand for your entire tenure on this site.

Which is why doing that has become known as 'the Zak S defense.'

Own goal.

[Mistborn]

The only way to prove your rule would be to contact members of my group and obtain evidence of the rule making the game worse. You have not done so.

That's not how it works fuckface. You didn't submit you rule to your gaming group, you submitted it to PhoneLobster and by extension the Gaming Den at large.

[Zak S]

Do you understand that there is a difference between perfect and 'good enough for your group'? Testing his theory, with no other qualifiers, actually puts the onus on you to provide a ruling that is perfect by his standards. At NO point did PL's theory even mention your group and their ability to function better with your ruling(s) than an official one (or even well enough to not collapse).

If PL was stupid enough and had read and grasped so little of the multipage conversation up until that point that he thought the point of a "ruling" was it's a universal decision that pretends to be ideal for everyone (which is the exact opposite of what a ruling--being local--is) (then he should:

1. Apologize for being that stupid and have been paying so little attention to the conversation he'd been having for 20 pages.
2. Explain what (in his bizarre fantasy world that existed until exactly this post when he realizes it was a fantasy world) the point of rulings could even be if they weren't local and customized to the group playing.
3. Apologize for having ignored the several times previous in that conversation where I pointed out a ruling did not have to be 'perfect' only 'less detrimental to the game the group is playing than looking the rule up or demanding people memorize it'--both of which are, for many people who aren't you, a genuine cost not worth the reward of the rules they then find after looking.

…and you should mea culpa for not having realized all that. I explained it many times at length. I am sorry you were, also, were too stupid to follow the very obvious logic there--however, if you have any other questions, since it's been clearly demonstrated how much of the obvious you miss you should phrase your questions as polite, clarifying questions rather than attacks on my position which I must defend by restating the obvious. It only slows down the conversation you alleged to want to have.

Zak did actually reveal why his system works for him; his players are very undemanding when it comes to rules. They don't know the rules, they don't really like the rules, they just want the DM to tell them what they need to roll so they can go back to talking in a funny voice. And if they do notice a rule produces screwy results they aren't really bothered enough to mention it.

You're lying: I never said that. Also: your assertion that nobody ever notices "screwy results" is a guess based on your (incorrect) assumptions. Do not dream up imaginary scenarios and then posit them as fact.

On the (again) very first page that this came up, Red Rob:

You've misinterpreted my post and how I run my game, Archmage.

The answer is not always "Yes" and there are always times to make choices that matter.

For example:

Player: "Do I get a bonus from attacking with a sword from a horse?"
GM: "Yes, +2"
Player: "What if I want to grab the amulet?"
GM: "Well he's a short goblin running the other way so if you want the amulet this round you'll have to get off the horse. (And, of course, if you miss on your attack at +2, the goblin's probably going to go down the trap door and it'll take you longer to follow if you have to get off that horse--so how do you want to play it?)"

The keys here are:

-that +2 horse rule, once made, is like that forever.
-the players generally have access to the rule before making a final decision, thus preserving tactical relevance of their decisions. There are (at least) two resolution mechanisms, 2 sets of odds--pick one.
-the players can appeal--and, in my local case--this never results in arguments or fights . If discussion of new rules does result in fights at your table, then maybe you need a heavier ruleset.

The game runs the way a game should: People have fun, people die, people are able to identify things they should have done differently, tactics matter, they have to think, bad decisions kill, the people who made them later can look back and see why.

The fact that you ignored something so central to the conversation should bother you and make you question why you're so lazy and dumb. Then you should now type something like "Oh, my bad, I'm a terrible fucking person and piled on for no good reason, I will try to be better in the future".

Well, I didn't think you were smart enough to understand that directing someone to 2,000 lines of text and claiming that the specific answer is 'somewheres in there' is not actually the same as actually directing someone to the specific answer by quoting it directly... because it's something you have continually failed to understand for your entire tenure on this site.

Again, if like a kindergarten child, you want old explanations repeated to you request that repetition and be specific. More importantly-- all the onus is on you if you do this incredbly stupid thing: you assume that just because you are too dumb to ask for an explanation that that explanation does not exist.

You don't go "Zak is wrong" and then wait around for someone to set you straight. Then you've lied in public to no end and makes it hard to understand which obviously true thing you've failed to grasp. What you do is ask me a specific question about your doubts instead--and use specific language. Then you get an answer and can ask questions about the answer you get.

To recap: The very tangled thread here starts when someone came on here and lied about my game. I explained as above in that box.

The fallacious arguments that followed were all answered here:

Overarching points:

(You're Not Having Enough Fun Fallacy)
1.. People who claim that rules with more detail are better for all possible groups have still refused to provide an example of a test or fact which could disprove their claim. Without that, the claim is not rational and they should stop doing that.

(Straight Up Strawman)
2. People who claim But Zak, no matter what works for you, rules with more detail are better for some or possibly most groups have failed to address the issue that, yeah, nobody's arguing with that.

Like they should at least admit that they now know that they don't have to keep repeating that like a mantra.

(See page 11, my second comment, item #2)

(Left Handed Scissors Fallacy, Everything Pizza Fallacy)
3. People who have argued that a game designer needs to only consider the larger audience that may need more detailed rules, and therefore must design a game that is going to be suboptimal for Rulings-not-Rules GMs because of the cost to those GMs and tables of search-and-handling or memorization have failed to explain why exactly designing a niche product would be bad in any way.

The only counter to 3 given so far has been arguments which would also define right-handed scissors as better than left-handed scissors (they make more money!) and would define a pizza with everything on it as always "superior" to a pepperoni or vegetarian pizza (either party can pick items off to get what they want!).

The disadvantage of the most obvious solution: having both detailed and undetailed rules (which would require more rulings) in print, published by different parties and designed by different parties, have been left unaddressed.

(Random Smack Talking)
4.People who have attacked the veracity of my claim that my game is fun for the people in my group and we like it and it works have provided no evidence at all and have not mounted any challenge to the evidence supporting my claim.

Other fallacies that came up, with refutations:

"But looking up/memorizing rules is easy and fun"

Different groups will experience this differently--it is more of a cost for some people than others. That's a fact.

"You're arguing this way works from anecdote"

If I say "this suit fits everyone" and then point (as evidence) to 3 people wearing it and it fits then I am unfairly arguing from anecdote. If I say "this suit fits 3 people" and it fits them I'm arguing from results and experiment.

Richard Dawkins on this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rj3rAJUVrGQ

"But what works for you has no wider implications for game design"

Oh it has tremendous implications for game design--two are:

a) Inculcating a system whereby local groups assess their rules needs and create rules to match them is desirable for many groups

b) There is a fillable niche for people who prize this mode of play--with games that have voids on purpose that the would-be GM and players are told up-front they will need to learn the skills necessary to make and test rules that work for them and which make rules-consultation easier by eliminating the kinds of rules someone should make up.

"But that's not a complete game"

If you wish to call the things referenced by people who aren't you use during play "game supplements" instead of "games", that's no skin off anyone's nose. It is when you call them "bad" or "failed" that you fall into the Left Handed Scissors Fallacy.

"What if a GM thinks they can make rulings but can't--they'll wish they had the other game. Even if some people want that less-complete game it's irresponsible for it to be on the shelf"

If the group isn't self-aware enough that they can't tell when their game is sucking they will never have much fun at this hobby anyway. And they'll need one of these 2 skills no matter what anyway: the skill of making rulings or the skill of only buying games that match their limited abilities.

"You'll make less money that way than the guy who has rules for how fast fire burns"

If money were the measure of good: get out of tabletop RPG design.

"You claim your rulings are perfect"

No, I claim that me making rulings and then (the rare times its necessary) using democratic processes to amend them is better overall than looking up or memorizing the more detailed rules I don't look up like how long fires burn

"But you're assuming your game could not be improved"

Incorrect--I am saying I have tried it my way and I've also tried it your way (and see it tried many different third ways in weekly games) and my way works better for my group. I continue, as always, to come up with ways which are neither your way nor mine but some other new way. However: recommending that I (and people whose groups are like mine) would benefit from discarded options because they would head off problems that have never occurred while incurring measurable and known costs is not a good idea.

"But phonelobster asked you for a ruling and you didn't do it right"

No, this i what happened. I said "ask me for a ruling"

Lobster said "Ok: Design this subsystem"

I pointed out this was a different thing--a ruling is about something simple you would decide midgame. But I was really nice and went and designed a subsystem too.

People then pointed out alleged shortfalls of the subsystem that, on closer examination weren't shortfalls, they were:

-"it doesn't reward altruism" (a lie--actually it very often does in every situation except a single edge case where it doesn't--when a potential patron of the PCs is 100% totally sure they will never ever need the PCs to save the world they live in or their continued good will for any reason and is 100% they'll never see them again and nobody is watching.)

-"it involves apple-stacking and lobster specifically asked for no apple-stacking" (Lobster left the term underdescribed in his question--if "apple-stacking" means someone can't keep getting bonuses by continually granting small favors--my system totally accounts for that. You can't because apples aren't going to be considered meaningful units of currency by all NPCs and also the NPC is often going to have competing interests that outweigh the cost of providing favors to the stacker. If PL meant something different which I did not understand him to mean, that is "A PC should not be able to curry ever greater favor with an NPC by giving them a supply of ever greater things of real value" then I guess you could call that "apple-stacking" but that's not how I understood the question. Oh well.

These fallacies were pointed out many times
("Your system wouldn't reward Superman."
"It would, here's an example"
"Uh….derrrrrp….(silence from the morons who voiced the objection)"

Nobody acknowledged the grotesque mistakes in logic they made in formulating them. Perhaps they realized that the mere fact of being dumb enough to raise these ideas as if they were serious objections things in the first place means their credibility is shot so they pretended they hadn't said them.

"But your system allows players to act like petulant psychopaths"

Requirement: "players can never choose to be petulant psychopaths" was not part of the challenge.

...

A functional system in a heroic game is supposed to give you rewards for doing awesome heroic things. But you have a limited amount of NUMBERS you can use. Bonuses to "next charisma rolls" in particular can only get so big. If you let people add apples together 1 apple at a time then yeah. They do that instead of rescuing princesses because it's worth MORE and costs LESS.

Again

"Requirement: players must be motivated by the system you invent to rescue princesses rather than buy influence"

…was not in what phonelobster typed. And an apple a day wouldn't work with what I wrote.

Here is what lobster typed:

Some people around here want a "Social Currency" system. A way of representing and recording gratitude, fear, and honorable debts.

Stated requirements include that in the event of gathering large amounts of "Fear Currency" by winning a war that a bunch of high level characters can give it to a 1st level Herald and he can go make the high level enemy generals surrender by cashing it in.

However at the same time it is important that you cannot accrue large amounts of incremental small pieces of currency like a gift of an apple a day and then cash them in for a kingdom.

He may have idiotically assumed that every single thing you ever dreamed should be in a social currency system was contained in those 3 paragraphs but it was not.

The second paragraph is easily satisfied, you get bonuses transferrable to your representatives.

Apples (or other trade goods) only count in bulk to people with kingdoms, for example, so that settles the 3rd requirement. An apple a day would not impress a king, or anyone with access to a kingdom, and certainly wouldn't impress them more than anyone else who might want that kingdom and be supplying or promising favors.

-"Lobster wouldn't like to use that system so it failed" (or:

The only way to prove your rule would be to contact members of my group and obtain evidence of the rule making the game worse. You have not done so.

That's not how it works fuckface. You didn't submit you rule to your gaming group, you submitted it to PhoneLobster and by extension the Gaming Den at large.

If you've read anything I wrote up until this point you'll know as a dead certainty that the entire benefit and point of a ruling is it provides local (as opposed to centralized) control over the game. If PL's request had been "satisfy me, the phonelobster, with no test at the table" I would have told him, straight up, that since I don't play with him I couldn't do that.

If PL were to ask for a ruling that PhoneLobster and random Gaming Den jackals would like… then that would have been a different task. And one that would stretch the definition of ruling, since we aren't in a game together and I have no grounds to judge the situation.

There's a greater point here, thought, which was What in god's name does anybody think that proves anyway? I made a rule and it works but you don't like it because of obscure objections. Therefore…what? You've succeeded only in proving a basic premise behind rulings--that different groups want different outcomes. Not (and this would make the rule bad) that it provides an outcome the designer didn't want .

A game where a player is not necessarily always rewarded with in-game currency for their character being altruistic is desirable to me (and does not violate lobster's request as stated) and would seem to underscore the point of altruism and at least at every table I play at (the only ones I could make a ruling for) wouldn't stop players from behaving altruistically (references available upon request).

If that isn't a way of dealing with morality in game that you like then that's a taste issue your table needs a different set of rules than mine. That's all you've proved. You haven't proved I'm dumb or irrational or bad at making rulings, just that I'm not you. Which I never claimed to be.

"Then why'd you ask?"

I assumed phonelobster was less stupid than he actually is. Phonelobster challenging me to come up with a genuine ruling quickly (and then, presumably, I and perhaps others would test it and record the results of the test) is a rational test of GM skill and a challenge I opened myself up for by saying I could do those kinds of things. Challenging me to come up with a ruling (not a rule, but a ruling) that someone I never played with and whose gaming proclivities I know nothing about (up to and including preferred knock-on effects for game world morality) would be an irrational thing to ask for. The worst you can say of me is that, in answering the request, I wrongly assumed phonelobster was sane and knew what "ruling" meant after having discussed it for 20-odd pages.

"But that renders the rule untestable and the argument for it tautological--you like it because you like it"

In no way. While I've brushed away your theoretical objections with my own theoretical (but true) counterarguments, there's actually a much simpler and more conclusive test: I am using it twice a week in a game. The players are in the game. You may consult them as to the efficacy of the rule. If you don't trust the porn girls, you can people in my on-line game--it's all game theory nerds like you--you can ask them how it's working out.

Further: you can ask anybody else in any of the dozens of groups running older D&D online how it's working out in their groups.

That's how you would test it--ask. Or even observe and then ask, because many of these games are recorded.

"Go away"

No problem, just stop obsessing over me and things you pretend I said and you may never see me again.

"But addressing your points is hard and I am very stupid. I would rather hurl random insults and/or simply abstractly declare victory."

While it is legal for you to be stupid and to mask your stupidity with blind rage and misdirected attempts at wit it is not advisable. Your presumed goal of knowing more about games is not served by it.

"Yeah, well, maybe , but you aren't good at communicating all this"

I have never claimed I had a special gift for communicating with morons and have never claimed my goal is to persuade. My task is merely to ensure that dumb lies are accompanied by the true facts they distort. If people see both sides and decide the unsupported moron side is the correct one, they are beyond help.
--
--

No - it is only proof that it works for your sample group, who may or may not have an eye to trying to exploit it yet. But let me try and explain this from the perspective of your third point.

They are not a "sample" they are the target (and only audience). If they were a sample group then your ideas would hold water but they aren't so they don't.

Type whether you grasp this distinction or not.

Many (though by means not all) players come to the table with an understanding of the formal rules, but not the individual house rules in play at a given table; houserules then can add a learning curve to anyone joining the group, even for a once-off.

Only if the player encounters many of those house rules in play (and, see above, I specifically say they can ask for a rule before taking an action based on it) which is fairly rare in any given session AND/OR if the volume of house rules exceeds the rules the new player would have to learn to adjust to whatever system they're going from anyway. i.e. if we assume someone can play two different RPGs (superheroes and D&D) we can assume they can play different systems of houserules.

I test this weekly, by the way:the girls--many of whom are new to gaming--play my game and also play a game a different GM runs every week. The rules and houserules are different. There is no significant friction.

So, again, it works for my group which is not a sample group (that is, a hopefully-representative example of a given whole) but the only target group for these rules (that is: the only people they have to please.)

I also play a few times a week with people who are making rulings all through the session: there's not much learning curve for experienced players either because I don't have many official or unofficial rules for, say, how fast wood burns memorized anyway. I only know one rule by heart (mine) and using a new one for a few combat rounds is a non-issue. In fact, it's fun to see how people do it when things like that come up. On Wednesday with Rey it's all d20s and on Friday with Evan it's all d6s. The "learning curve" of hearing or asking what die to roll or that you will roll is far less than the curve of having to read all the game manuals all the way through for editions that are in most ways, identical.

Keeping track of the rulings themselves tends to add to the bookkeeping involved in the game, because if you want the ruling to apply from the point it was made forward (and thus forestall future arguments), you're probably going to want to write it down at some point.

The workload involved in doing this has been found (locally--that's all that matters) to be less than the workload involved in following RAW. I've tried it both ways. Your mileage will vary.

the fact they have fun with it does not prove that a given change is mechanically sound, because that's the only thing that can be argued objectively….For example, many people generate their own houserules and homebrewed setting and game material like classes and magic items, which tend to be someone complicated, and may involve maps and the like…. in this case, they're offering their rules up to a much larger audience, and the more eyes on a given rule the better the odds are that someone will find a way to break or distort it...Which is all it boils down to, really. No, you're not writing this for them, but if you do present your game material to the public, then the public might find fault with it.

You have just given the entire justification for using at-the-table house rules over published rules. You are making my argument. what fits one group may not fit another.

One tiny moving part here-- "objectively" is (when properly used) a measure of whether a game rule matches the designer's purpose for the designer's audience. That can be evaluated

Rulings make this easier by limiting that audience to only people the designer knows well.

What is the point of playtesting and researching how other groups play except looking at designing rules for a larger audience than their immediate group?

Money. And that's about it.

But what that has to do with distortions of things I said is unclear. I'm not telling you what to do, I'm correcting mistakes people made about what I said.

When I put rules up on my blog, it's to discuss them with people who also have good ideas, not with people who have no ideas like phonelobster. With him it's simply controlling the damage he does by lying.

I think any time you publish a rule or game material, whether it be in a book or "official" gaming product or a blog or a forum post you're writing to a given audience that larger than you and your mates. You don't have to write a rule or material that works for everybody, but you should try to at least make it as mechanically correct as you can and usable by the intended audience.

When you ask for no money your "intended audience" only has to be "people who are like me". It is only when you ask for money from people that you are under an obligation to provide things for them you yourself might not need.

However incorrect your objections are, they do have the virtue of being relatively new and not idiotic, so I am going to thank you for that and add these answers to the Big Repeating Stuff I Already Said post.
-
-

If you doubt a word I've said: ask a question for more evidence or, to end the argument quicker--email me and show up and play a game. Mondays or Sundays.

[Avoraciopoctules]

fix your tags, please

[Dean]

First unfuck your tags. Second, recognize that we've already covered all your weak ass arguments and unfuck your opinions.

[Zak S]

we've already covered all your weak ass arguments and unfuck your opinions.

You are lying. If you think you are not lying: cite my mistake and then type what your objection is. If you are too dumb to be able to do that, that's ok--just stop writing things on the internet.

[Mistborn]

There's a greater point here, thought, which was What in god's name does anybody think that proves anyway? I made a rule and it works but you don't like it because of obscure objections. Therefore…what? You've succeeded only in proving a basic premise entire premise of rulings--that different groups want different outcomes.

Ok here's the deal "it works for my group" does not fly here. That's why you are a laughingstock. We don't bring you up because we're still trying to argue with you, that point has passed a long time ago. You're a fucking running gag, a memetic stand in for bad arguments ensconced in the folds of the Den's mythology the way Shadzar and Titanium Dragon are.

[Zak S]

There's a greater point here, thought, which was What in god's name does anybody think that proves anyway? I made a rule and it works but you don't like it because of obscure objections. Therefore…what? You've succeeded only in proving a basic premise entire premise of rulings--that different groups want different outcomes.

Ok here's the deal "it works for my group" does not fly here. That's why you are a laughingstock. We don't bring you up because we're still trying to argue with you, that point has passed a long time ago. You're a fucking running gag, a memetic stand in for bad arguments ensconced in the folds of the Den's mythology the way Shadzar and Titanium Dragon are.

Then you have failed and are not smart. Advertising that you have failed and are not smart does not make you smart.

In order for what you say to make any sense, you would have to prove that all groups receive exactly the same outcomes at the table as "fun". You'd have to prove that, for example, all game groups everywhere like the possibility of being one-shotted at first level or all groups everywhere do not.

Since this can't be proven (because it's not true) you, and any people you might accurately claim to represent, have signed on to a fallacy as a defining characteristic. You should now type something like "Oh, I never realized that because I'm so stupid that I thought everyone was exactly like me. That was dumb--I should give up on what I just said totally. I'm going to sign off and go think about how far my life has gone off track in a cave somewhere, Signed, Lord Mistborn."

[Ancient History]

In order for what you say to make any sense, you would have to prove that all groups receive exactly the same outcomes at the table as "fun". You'd have to prove that, for example, all game groups everywhere like the possibility of being one-shotted at first level or all groups everywhere do not.

No, I think you've missed the point here. You are correct in that every group is going to run their games a little bit differently, and every group is going to find their own brand of fun. That's not a matter of question or debate here; more to the point it cannot be a point of argument - arguing that one group is "doing it wrong" because they're playing a game with slightly different houserules or setting is infantile and pointless.

However, by the exact same logic "It works at my table" is not acceptable as proof that any given houserule or setting is good or works. No one here is omniscient, no one can see and experience what everyone does at their tables. The only thing we have as an objective common ground to argue over are the rules and setting material as written - and that we tend to argue in great detail and at great length.

[Zak S]

However, by the exact same logic "It works at my table" is not acceptable as proof that any given houserule or setting is good or works

Of course it is.

To repeat what I already put on this page:


Attack: "You're arguing this way works from anecdote"

Defense: If I say "this suit fits everyone" and then point (as evidence) to 3 people wearing it and it fits then I am unfairly arguing from anecdote. If I say "this suit fits these 3 people" and it fits them I'm arguing from results and experiment.

Richard Dawkins on this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rj3rAJUVrGQ

And to repeat myself again:

3. People who have argued that a game designer needs to only consider the larger audience that may need more detailed rules, and therefore must design a game that is going to be suboptimal for Rulings-not-Rules GMs because of the cost to those GMs and tables of search-and-handling or memorization have failed to explain why exactly designing a niche product would be bad in any way.

The only counter to 3 given so far has been arguments which would also define right-handed scissors as better than left-handed scissors (they make more money!) and would define a pizza with everything on it as always "superior" to a pepperoni or vegetarian pizza (either party can pick items off to get what they want!).

The disadvantage of the most obvious solution: having both detailed and undetailed rules (which would require more rulings) in print, published by different parties and designed by different parties, have been left unaddressed.

No one here is omniscient, no one can see and experience what everyone does at their tables.

If you are asserting that you doubt that the results are accurately reported, to again repeat something already on this page:

"
there's actually a much simpler and more conclusive test: I am using it twice a week in a game. The players are in the game. You may consult them as to the efficacy of the rule. If you don't trust the porn girls, you can people in my on-line game--it's all game theory nerds like you--you can ask them how it's working out.

Further: you can ask anybody else in any of the dozens of groups running older D&D online how it's working out in their groups.

That's how you would test it--ask. Or even observe and then ask, because many of these games are recorded.
"

and

"...email me and show up and play a game. Mondays or Sundays."
-
-
-
There is no need in 2014 to sit in ignorance guessing whether rules might fit an extant group's needs or not. Go on youtube or something and watch a game. Arguing over only what you guess the effect of a rule is is without experiment is no longer the best you can do.

[Sakuya Izayoi]

Iran is set to dial their legal age of marriage, and by extension their age of consent, to 10 years old. Iran's "houserule" probably wouldn't work very well applied to other countries.

[Zak S]

Iran is set to dial their legal age of marriage, and by extension their age of consent, to 10 years old. Iran's "houserule" probably wouldn't work very well applied to other countries.

To again cut and paste something already on this page:

"
People who claim 'But Zak, no matter what works for you, rules with more detail are better for some or possibly most groups' have failed to address the issue that, yeah, nobody's arguing with that.

Like they should at least admit that they now know that they don't have to keep repeating that like a mantra.
"
So that demolishes that line of attack. It is stupid to raise that argument yet again and you should not have done it.

If you are arguing that--like the Iranian rule--my way of doing house-ruling is somehow immoral or detrimental to the common good (even if it were not repeated outside Iran) and might damage my players in some way then you have yet to make any argument like that. You should do that now if that stupid thing is what you believe.

[hyzmarca]

I don't think Sakuya Izayoi is trying to claim that permitting ten year olds to marry is immoral, merely that it is unpopular at many gaming tables.

[Ancient History]

However, by the exact same logic "It works at my table" is not acceptable as proof that any given houserule or setting is good or works

Of course it is.

No - it is only proof that it works for your sample group, who may or may not have an eye to trying to exploit it yet. But let me try and explain this from the perspective of your third point.

3. People who have argued that a game designer needs to only consider the larger audience that may need more detailed rules, and therefore must design a game that is going to be suboptimal for Rulings-not-Rules GMs because of the cost to those GMs and tables of search-and-handling or memorization have failed to explain why exactly designing a niche product would be bad in any way.

The only counter to 3 given so far has been arguments which would also define right-handed scissors as better than left-handed scissors (they make more money!) and would define a pizza with everything on it as always "superior" to a pepperoni or vegetarian pizza (either party can pick items off to get what they want!).

The disadvantage of the most obvious solution: having both detailed and undetailed rules (which would require more rulings) in print, published by different parties and designed by different parties, have been left unaddressed.

I'm going to try and answer this by drawing a parallel to an existing system: the legal profession. In the US, this broadly breaks down into formal laws passed by a legislative body that everyone refers to, and case law set by the rulings of judges which only apply to given jurisdictions. In this case, you can consider rulebooks and other published products as "formal" laws that multiple groups across the world can refer to when running their games, and the rulings of individual judges being the houserules and determinations of individual game masters that only cover their home games.

The thing is, every game is going to have some houserules. Some question is going to come up, the game master can't find an answer right away or doesn't know it offhand, and comes up with something on the fly that works - or maybe he wants to try out a homebrew system, or a player wants to try out the class they just made. Everything is kept at the level of their group, with no impact on other groups. This doesn't mean the rulings are perfect; any lawyer will tell you that case law can be a pain in the ass, because it depends on keeping a record of the rulings and referring back to them as situations come up, and sometimes rulings are found to be erroneous or don't work as intended. So it is with houserules: sometimes a class/item/spell is overpowered or underpowered, or a ruling allows a loophole that makes the game less fun for people playing. Plenty of games have gotten far enough down the houserule path that they're no longer very similar to the existing formal rules in the rulebooks or whatnot, and that's how plenty of indie games have gotten started.

So I don't think the issue of having rulings is by itself bad. I think it's a natural outgrowth of gaming. I do think it has its drawbacks, though. Many (though by means not all) players come to the table with an understanding of the formal rules, but not the individual house rules in play at a given table; houserules then can add a learning curve to anyone joining the group, even for a once-off. Keeping track of the rulings themselves tends to add to the bookkeeping involved in the game, because if you want the ruling to apply from the point it was made forward (and thus forestall future arguments), you're probably going to want to write it down at some point.

No one here is omniscient, no one can see and experience what everyone does at their tables.

If you are asserting that you doubt that the results are accurately reported, to again repeat something already on this page:

"
there's actually a much simpler and more conclusive test: I am using it twice a week in a game. The players are in the game. You may consult them as to the efficacy of the rule. If you don't trust the porn girls, you can people in my on-line game--it's all game theory nerds like you--you can ask them how it's working out.

Further: you can ask anybody else in any of the dozens of groups running older D&D online how it's working out in their groups.

Again, not the point. I am glad it works for the people in your group. I am glad they have fun with it. It is not that I don't trust them that it works or having fun with it. It is only that the fact they have fun with it does not prove that a given change is mechanically sound, because that's the only thing that can be argued objectively.

For example, many people generate their own houserules and homebrewed setting and game material like classes and magic items, which tend to be someone complicated, and may involve maps and the like. Sometimes people like to publish this material, either formally in a sourcebook or semiformally in a blog (like mine! Or yours.) - in this case, they're offering their rules up to a much larger audience, and the more eyes on a given rule the better the odds are that someone will find a way to break or distort it. That doesn't mean that the material doesn't work in the original group, but it does mean that any inherent mechanical or mathematical weaknesses to the system are more likely to be uncovered. Sometimes this feedback is incorporated and the material is refined, sometimes not. If somebody finds a mechanical flaw in your material and declares it "broken," that doesn't mean your group has any problem with it - but someone looking at it from another angle will say "Well, shit, that could cause a problem in my game." and maybe they won't use it.

Which is all it boils down to, really. No, you're not writing this for them, but if you do present your game material to the public, then the public might find fault with it. If it's just setting material they object to, that's an opinion. If it's an actual mechanical issue, that's inarguable unless they made a mistake. I've made many mistakes; I've even fixed a few of them.

There is no need in 2014 to sit in ignorance guessing whether rules might fit an extant group's needs or not. Go on youtube or something and watch a game. Arguing over only what you guess the effect of a rule is is without experiment is no longer the best you can do.

And in general, I think playtesting and research is a great idea when making rules and game material. I wish we'd done more of it when I was actively freelancing. However, to call back to what you said before:

3. People who have argued that a game designer needs to only consider the larger audience that may need more detailed rules, and therefore must design a game that is going to be suboptimal for Rulings-not-Rules GMs because of the cost to those GMs and tables of search-and-handling or memorization have failed to explain why exactly designing a niche product would be bad in any way.

What is the point of playtesting and researching how other groups play except looking at designing rules for a larger audience than their immediate group? Even these days a "niche" product can have quite a large audience, or at least larger than the immediate gaming table. I think any time you publish a rule or game material, whether it be in a book or "official" gaming product or a blog or a forum post you're writing to a given audience that larger than you and your mates. You don't have to write a rule or material that works for everybody, but you should try to at least make it as mechanically correct as you can and usable by the intended audience.

[Zak S]

I don't think Sakuya Izayoi is trying to claim that permitting ten year olds to marry is immoral, merely that it is unpopular at many gaming tables.

It's likely both but even if it wasn't, it's not relevant here and I just addressed every part of the assumed argument.

If there is some part of it you think I have not addressed, type what that is.

[Dean]

You are lying. If you think you are not lying: cite my mistake and then type what your objection is.

Lick my butthole you Dunning-Krueger poster boy. That has been done. It's been done dozens of times. It's been done in this thread. It was done by Mistborn in this thread directly above your last post. The fact is I'm not gonna get in the line of people providing quotes that prove you wrong or with challenges that you fail at hilariously. You, in your beautiful naivety, think the discussion of whether you are obviously incorrect is still up in the air. It's not. Every part of your argument has been torn to shreds and we only bring it up to warn other people that they are sounding as dumb as you. You think we see you as an opponent or a contrarian but the only reason we bring you up is because you are a poster boy for unaware ignorance and dishonesty. You are a constant fail-machine who's adorable bumblings have been the cause of great mirth here. I mean look at you trying to defend the waterloo of Phonelobsters challenge. In your defense you fail to understand the terms of the challenge, apologize for failing it twice, say you won anyways because the system totally works even though you never typed it out and what we saw was a drastic failure. Basically this is you:



Now sure I -could- ask you to write out a complete version of your social trading rules which you obviously can't do. I could point out that your rulings were to be judged by Phonelobster and failed AMAZINGLY by the only metric he chose and thus were failures in the eyes of the person you were exclusively providing the ruling for. I could provide you with a thousand planks for you to walk to your own failure and I'm confident that you would be smugly willing to Mr. Magoo your way through all of them to our great amusement and delight as you declared that the briny depths you inhabited weren't wet by your groups standards.

But I'm not gonna do that Zak, I don't need to. You are the only one not certain of your own failure and I don't want to prove it to you. I don't want to change one thing about you Zak. You are the Chris Chan of the gaming den. A kind of retarded so deep it transcends trolling into being art. Shadzar is a 54 year old virgin and crazy person but that's more sad than funny. Silva trots out terrible games and defends them as superior through relativism, which is dumb, but at least he's learning. None of them are like you Zak. Watching you argue is amazing. You stride in with your tiny dick flapping about declaring that we're too stupid to see your beautiful pants. Then when everyone points at your intellectual nudity you scamper off to lick your wounds but always jump back when we wound your pride by retelling your tale. Ready to prove your pants really were beautiful all along. You are amazing and I don't want you to change anything.

All my love... If-then, you are lying, apologize, etc.
-Dean

[Zak S]

No - it is only proof that it works for your sample group, who may or may not have an eye to trying to exploit it yet. But let me try and explain this from the perspective of your third point.

They are not a "sample" they are the target (and only audience). If they were a sample group then your ideas would hold water but they aren't so they don't.

Type whether you grasp this distinction or not.

Many (though by means not all) players come to the table with an understanding of the formal rules, but not the individual house rules in play at a given table; houserules then can add a learning curve to anyone joining the group, even for a once-off.

Only if the player encounters those house rules a lot in play (and, see above, I specifically say they can ask for a rule before taking an action based on it) which is fairly rare in any given session AND/OR if the volume of house rules exceeds the rules the new player would have to learn to adjust to whatever system they're going from anyway. i.e. if we assume someone can play two different RPGs (superheroes and D&D) we can assume they can play different systems of houserules.

I test this weekly, by the way:the girls--many of whom are new to gaming--play my game and also play a game a different GM runs every week. The rules and houserules are different. There is no significant friction.

So, again, it works for my group which is not a sample group (that is, a hopefully-representative example of a given whole) but the only target group for these rules (that is: the only people they have to please.)

I also play a few times a week with people who are making rulings all through the session: there's not much learning curve for experienced players either because I don't have many official or unofficial rules for, say, how fast wood burns memorized anyway. I only know one rule (mine) and using a new one for a few combat rounds is a non-issue. In fact, it's fun to see how people do it when things like that come up. On Wednesday with Rey it's all d20s and on Friday with Evan it's all d6s. The "learning curve" of hearing what die to roll is far less than the curve of having to read all the game manuals all the way through for editions that are in most ways, identical.

Keeping track of the rulings themselves tends to add to the bookkeeping involved in the game, because if you want the ruling to apply from the point it was made forward (and thus forestall future arguments), you're probably going to want to write it down at some point.

The workload involved in doing this has been found (locally--that;s all that matters) to be less than the workload involved in following RAW. I;ve tried it both ways. Your mileage will vary.

the fact they have fun with it does not prove that a given change is mechanically sound, because that's the only thing that can be argued objectively….For example, many people generate their own houserules and homebrewed setting and game material like classes and magic items, which tend to be someone complicated, and may involve maps and the like…. in this case, they're offering their rules up to a much larger audience, and the more eyes on a given rule the better the odds are that someone will find a way to break or distort it...Which is all it boils down to, really. No, you're not writing this for them, but if you do present your game material to the public, then the public might find fault with it.

You have just given the entire justification for using at-the-table house rules over published rules. You are making my argument. what fits one group may not fit another.

One tiny moving part here-- "objectively" is (when properly used) a measure of whether a game rule matches the designer's purpose for the designer's audience. That can be evaluated

Rulings make this easier by limiting that audience to only people the designer knows well.

What is the point of playtesting and researching how other groups play except looking at designing rules for a larger audience than their immediate group?

Money. And that's about it.

But what that has to do with distortions of things I said is unclear. I'm not telling you what to do, I'm correcting mistakes people made about what I said.

I think any time you publish a rule or game material, whether it be in a book or "official" gaming product or a blog or a forum post you're writing to a given audience that larger than you and your mates. You don't have to write a rule or material that works for everybody, but you should try to at least make it as mechanically correct as you can and usable by the intended audience.

When you ask for no money your "intended audience" only has to be "people who are like me". It is only when you ask for money from people that you are under an obligation to provide things for them you yourself might not need.

However incorrect your objections are, they do have the virtue of being relatively new and not idiotic, so I am going to thank you for that and add these answers to the Big Repeating Stuff I Already Said post.