Your Rule Sucks: The Zak S Social Currency Edition

[Ancient History]

1. I have repeatedly said I know that my group is not representative of all groups and requires different rules than other groups (like all groups do). Do you believe me when I say that or do you think I am lying and need proof?

I'll take it as given your group is not representative.

3. Is your standard for my rule:
It must work for my group?
It must work for all groups?
It must work for most groups? (untestable)
It must work for PhoneLobsters group?
Something else?

(more questions if these are answered)

My standard is that for your rule to not suck, at least the objective parts of it must work and it must meet the design criteria.

[/edit]And, in case that is not clear, since the rule has no given system and is presumably for a general audience, if the mechanics are functional than they should be functional for all groups that decide to use the rule.

My heart weeps for your soul.

Never believed in souls.

[Zak S]

1. I have repeatedly said I know that my group is not representative of all groups and requires different rules than other groups (like all groups do). Do you believe me when I say that or do you think I am lying and need proof?

I'll take it as given your group is not representative.

4. That is not the question: the question is are you aware that I know that and have said that all along. So: Do you believe that or do you need proof?

3. Is your standard for my rule:
It must work for my group?
It must work for all groups?
It must work for most groups? (untestable)
It must work for PhoneLobsters group?
Something else?

(more questions if these are answered)

My standard is that for your rule to not suck, at least the objective parts of it must work and it must meet the design criteria.

5. Do you accept the idea that all all evaluations (suck/not suck) of RPG rules have to assume an given audience? " children who can't read" Or "people who like high fantasy" or "People who like what they think of as gritty realism" "children under 12"etc.

6. Do you accept some of these groups have some mutually exclusive requirements? (Audience for a gritty body horror game vs audience for a elementary school-age fantasy game, f'rexample)

[Ancient History]

Fix your quote tags please, Zak S., and then we'll continue. Right, sorted, carrying on.

4. That is not the question: the question is are you aware that I know that and have said that all along. So: Do you believe that or do you need proof?

Zak, none of us have any idea what's going on beneath that magnificent green mane of yours. But I'll take your word for it that you think your group is not representative of all gaming groups.

5. Do you accept the idea that all all evaluations (suck/not suck) of RPG rules have to assume an given audience? " children who can't read" Or "people who like high fantasy" or "People who like what they think of as gritty realism" "children under 12"etc.

As a writer, I believe that everything, including game materials, is written for a given audience - if not consciously, then unconsciously based on our experience, biases, and perceptions. I will accept that evaluations as to whether an RPG rule sucks or doesn't suck has to make some basic assumptions about the audience, namely that they have at least a basic understanding of the language (and any specific terminology) and the basic math used; some additional assumptions on the audience might be made based on the nature and language of the rule, but for an objective understanding you're pretty much going on ability to comprehend the text of the rule and the mathematical mechanics.

6. Do you accept some of these groups have some mutually exclusive requirements? (Audience for a gritty body horror game vs audience for a elementary school-age fantasy game, f'rexample)

No. There are rarely any "requirements" beyond the raw materials (pen, paper, dice, books, players) needed. Different groups and different games have individual tastes and play styles, but that's a horse of a different color.

[wotmaniac]

Okay Zak, how fucking stupid are you?
It's been said multiple times that no one begrudges you having personal fun with any given rule, sucky or not.
Also (since you seem to like to pretend to be able to recognize logical fallacies), just because it "works" for your group does not make it objectively a good rule.

Can you at least recognize that? Because that seems to be what your current line of argument is butting up against.

[Zak S]

Also (since you seem to like to pretend to be able to recognize logical fallacies), just because it "works" for your group does not make it objectively a good rule.

Can you at least recognize that? Because that seems to be what your current line of argument is butting up against.

Oh yeah, I know that. But just because another group (one with a shit GM for example) cannot use a given rule doesn't make it sucky.

Again: you need to deal with the Left Handed Scissors Fallacy if this is your idea.

[Ancient History]

But just because another group (one with a shit GM for example) cannot use a given rule doesn't make it sucky.

Nor does it make it good. Having the potential for abuse and failing the design criteria do make it suck, though. You're always resistant to address that last part.

[Zak S]

Zak, none of us have any idea what's going on beneath that magnificent green mane of yours. But I'll take your word for it that you think your group is not representative of all gaming groups.

6. So do you agree to never ever reiterate the obvious-to-everyone idea that my group (like all others) is unrepresentative? Because it slows the conversation down.

I will accept that evaluations as to whether an RPG rule sucks or doesn't suck has to make some basic assumptions about the audience, namely that they have at least a basic understanding of the language (and any specific terminology) and the basic math used; some additional assumptions on the audience might be made based on the nature and language of the rule, but for an objective understanding you're pretty much going on ability to comprehend the text of the rule and the mathematical mechanics.

6. Do you accept some of these groups have some mutually exclusive requirements? (Audience for a gritty body horror game vs audience for a elementary school-age fantasy game, f'rexample)

No. There are rarely any "requirements" beyond the raw materials (pen, paper, dice, books, players) needed. Different groups and different games have individual tastes and play styles, but that's a horse of a different color.

7. Do you accept that a rule (no necessarily mine) could be intentionally meant for people who have a certain capability and another rule could be intentionally meant for people who do not have that capability?

8. Do you accept that a rule designed for a low-capability GM could be perceived by one with a high-capability as containing more detail than would be optimal on the page?

9. Where is the line between "taste" and "not fitting your requirements of the group"? Can you describe it? Like someone described two swordsmen grappling as a bad outcome. I don't see that as a bad outcome. Is that a taste difference or mutually exclusive requirements?

[Ancient History]

Tags, Zak.

6. So do you agree to never ever reiterate the obvious-to-everyone idea that my group (like all others) is unrepresentative? Because it slows the conversation down.

What are you on about? I already said that your group is not representative of gaming groups in general.

7. Do you accept that a rule (no necessarily mine) could be intentionally meant for people who have a certain capability and another rule could be intentionally meant for people who do not have that capability?

I'm not sure of your exact meaning here, so I'll answer this two ways.

A rule can be written with one audience in mind, and can be written in such a way as to assume things about that audience that are not true for all audiences. For example, a rule for Traveller might have more complicated math in it than, say, Amber Diceless Roleplaying; and a rule aimed at introductory gamers might use simpler language and terminology than for more experienced gamers, like how Magic: the Gathering had the Basic sets.

A rule can also be written with the purpose of applying to certain characters with capabilities that other characters lack - certain feats in d20 for example, are based on class features or abilities normally restricted to a few classes/races/etc. Of course, that doesn't mean said rule/feat/whatever will always be applied only to that race/class/character, because any character that meets the prerequisites could have to deal with it.

The intent of a person writing a rule necessarily matters to the degree you appear to think it does; while it is nice to abide by the spirit of the rules, the whole concept of "rules-lawyering" in gaming (and, well, real life) is about strict adherence to the letter of the rules.

8. Do you accept that a rule designed for a low-capability GM could be perceived by one with a high-capability as containing more detail than would be optimal on the page?

The optimal detail of a rule is the amount necessary to fully express (and in some cases, illustrate) the rule. I've seen this taken to the point of parody in rare cases - Hackmaster 4th springs to mind - and many gamemasters are arrogant or not very good at game design, so yes I accept that some GMs could perceive a rule as having too much detail, though I don't personally think that's a major issue from a game design standpoint so long as the text of the rule is clear. Better too much detail than too little.

9. Where is the line between "taste" and "not fitting your requirements of the group"? Can you describe it? Like someone described two swordsmen grappling as a bad outcome. I don't see that as a bad outcome. Is that a taste difference or mutually exclusive requirements?

As I said, I hold "requirements" to be pretty much physical - players, play area, character sheets, etc. Taste and style are based on the personalities in the group, which can be a mix of age, gender, maturity, experience, etc. A group of under-12s with someone's Dad acting as the Dungeonmaster is probably not going to lean the game heavily on the Book of Erotic Fantasy, but (local laws aside) that doesn't mean they're required to play He-Man the RPG or Pee-Wee Dungeons; by the same token a tight-knit group of Dr. Pepper-guzzling neckbeardy male grognards might have quite a lot of fun playing Princess: the Hopeful. There are groups that don't have compatible styles, and there are games that might not be suitable for all groups and styles of play - FATAL and Racial Holy War, for example, aren't suitable for pretty much anyone. Ever.

The grappling bit is a difference of taste driven by mechanics; in that specific instance the argument consists of preferred playstyle (two swordsmen get ready for an epic duel and immediately set to throwing aside the swords they've painfully mastered over years to pull each other's hair like little girls is just not everyone's cup of tea), driven by a mechanical issue - if you make disarming a swordsman too easy, then you invite this sort of scene in your game. It's been an issue in games like D&D3 and Exalted where a particular attack/charm is obviously and blatantly more effective than other attacks/charms and so tends to dominate play.

[Zak S]

But just because another group (one with a shit GM for example) cannot use a given rule doesn't make it sucky.

Nor does it make it good. Having the potential for abuse and failing the design criteria do make it suck, though. You're always resistant to address that last part.

We'll get to that. It's my contention I met the criteria 100%, but I think we have to build up to that by starting with the different assumptions here.

[PhoneLobster]

...obvious-to-everyone idea that my group (like all others) is unrepresentative...

No no, lets reiterate it a lot. In fact. Do please elaborate. How is it that ALL groups are so very uniquely unique.

This could be a whole new field of statistical analysis.

[PhoneLobster]

It's my contention I met the criteria 100%, but I think we have to build up to that by starting with the different assumptions here.

That's right everybody. He claims to have met the criteria one hundred percent.

But he won't talk about how he scored 100% goals until you let him spend a good half dozen more pages very carefully retroactively shifting the goal posts ten more times. THEN he will "get around to it".

How many people here think Zak actually realizes he just flat out said "My answer will be correct as soon as you let me re-write the question to fit it. Again."?

[Zak S]

...obvious-to-everyone idea that my group (like all others) is unrepresentative...

No no, lets reiterate it a lot. In fact. Do please elaborate. How is it that ALL groups are so very uniquely unique.

Genetics+geography+sociology+economics+group dynamics+chance. I mean: people are different. If you didn't know that, ok. Now you do.

[PhoneLobster]

Genetics+geography+sociology+economics+group dynamics+chance. I mean: people are different. If you didn't know that, ok. Now you do.

Good lord, it was so obvious! Why didn't we see it sooner. EVERYONE is TOTALLY unique because of stuff!

Well that's it.

Fire all the statisticians. The entire field has been debunked.

Thank's Zak S. Without you humanity might have risked learning something.

[Zak S]

Genetics+geography+sociology+economics+group dynamics+chance. I mean: people are different. If you didn't know that, ok. Now you do.

Good lord, it was so obvious! Why didn't we see it sooner. EVERYONE is TOTALLY unique because of stuff!

Well that's it.

Fire all the statisticians. The entire field has been debunked.

Thank's Zak S. Without you humanity might have risked learning something.

So everybody should play the same PCs then? No need to roll or name your own. And no need to write any new things, ever, because surely all possible combinations of words have been tried? and we should order the same pizza for everyone?

The fact that trends and majorities exist does not mean we can identify a "prefect fit" for all people. And even less for all groups of people. You're speaking too abstractly to make a relevant point.

[PhoneLobster]

The fact that trends and majorities exist

So then you admit you were wrong about the whole "everyone is so totally unique that representative groups just fucking don't even exist" thing then.

Fuck it. Has the call gone out yet? Is it too late to hire the statisticians back?

Though apparently if we DO you seem to think the natural end point of representative samples merely being acknowledged as even possible let alone likely, is somehow some sort of ultra conformist totalitarian big brother dealio.

So maybe we shouldn't rush to re-employ those freedom hating statisticians with their freedom killing observations.

[Ancient History]

I'm on the East Coast and I've been getting like six hours of sleep a night this week with my job and all, so I'm going to pack it in. Zak, if you want to keep playing Socrates we can continue on, just post your questions and I'll get to them sometime in the morning.

[Zak S]

I'm on the East Coast and I've been getting like six hours of sleep a night this week with my job and all, so I'm going to pack it in. Zak, if you want to keep playing Socrates we can continue on, just post your questions and I'll get to them sometime in the morning.

You mistake me: A Socratic question is so you can learn things. Your education is not the goal here. My goal is that I figure out what the fuck you're thinking. This is simple investigation.

The last question is above keep track of this page. The dorks will probably try their best to turn it into alphabet soup before you wake up.

[Username17]

The thing that's really weird about this whole thing is that Zak S appears to be sufficiently arrogant to believe that he actually did complete the task "100%." That's odd of course, because he was asked for a social currency system and produced something wasn't a social currency system at all. We can discuss whether it was terrible, and indeed pretty much everyone who has read it has determined that it is, in fact, extremely bad. But everyone should be able to see that if the design goal is "make a social currency system" and you produce something that is not a social currency system and walk away, that you very definitely didn't complete the task.

We could have a debate whether writing something that was either "social" or currency entailed completing the task to 50% or 0%, but 100% is clearly outside the possible discussion space. If something isn't social currency, then obviously it can't possibly be considered a 100% completion of a request to make social currency. It's just not even a thing that sane people can even suggest as a possibility.

Personally, I lean towards the opinion that Zak's failure was total and complete. But I could definitely see a rational person arguing that he only half failed on the grounds that he did write up some things which could generously be called social guidelines. Zak S' claim that he completed the task 100% cannot be taken seriously. That is demonstrably a narcissistic delusion. The amount of narcissism required to think that was even a thing that could be seriously suggested in discussion is genuinely pathological. My suggestion, my serious suggestion, as a doctor, is to get psychological help. There is no magical cure that makes narcissistic personality disorder go away, but some patients do better taking anti-anxiety or anti-psychotic medications.

-Username17

[Zak S]

The thing that's really weird about this whole thing is that Zak S appears to be sufficiently arrogant to believe that he actually did complete the task "100%." That's odd of course, because he was asked for a social currency system and produced something wasn't a social currency system at all. We can discuss whether it was terrible, and indeed pretty much everyone who has read it has determined that it is, in fact, extremely bad. But everyone should be able to see that if the design goal is "make a social currency system" and you produce something that is not a social currency system and walk away, that you very definitely didn't complete the task.

We could have a debate whether writing something that was either "social" or currency entailed completing the task to 50% or 0%, but 100% is clearly outside the possible discussion space. If something isn't social currency, then obviously it can't possibly be considered a 100% completion of a request to make social currency. It's just not even a thing that sane people can even suggest as a possibility.

Personally, I lean towards the opinion that Zak's failure was total and complete. But I could definitely see a rational person arguing that he only half failed on the grounds that he did write up some things which could generously be called social guidelines. Zak S' claim that he completed the task 100% cannot be taken seriously. That is demonstrably a narcissistic delusion. The amount of narcissism required to think that was even a thing that could be seriously suggested in discussion is genuinely pathological. My suggestion, my serious suggestion, as a doctor, is to get psychological help. There is no magical cure that makes narcissistic personality disorder go away, but some patients do better taking anti-anxiety or anti-psychotic medications.

-Username17

The last interaction about the rule with Frank was:

Frank: "This rule looks like it wouldn't reward altruistic PCs."

Zak: "Nope, here's an example" (the OP has examples in it)

Frank: (nothing)

Whether or not you think the rule is bad, there's no denying it rewards altruistic and selfish PCs alike. Or at least there's an example of that happening that Frank is just letting sit out there and not addressing--and neither is anyone else.
So the fact that Frank is reading this thread but not admitting that he made a mistake there is intensely intellectually dishonest. I don't really see how anybody could think Frank has any credibility. He's just covering the fact that he made a huge mistake by hurling invective and speaking in abstractions.

[Dean]

3 things.

#1: I would like for Zak S to comment on his being factually wrong that 1's are auto-failures on ability and skill checks. Zak since you have access to the internet, can check the SRD, and are very keen on people apologizing when incorrect I wonder if you would like to comment on you using factually incorrect information in your defense.

#2

Dear god, this is practically a shadzarian position.

I like the word Shadzarian but his positions are more "Silvan" if you will. They both came in as the "relativism" duo which is very funny because relativism as a defense for something being good makes no sense which has been pointed out to Zak about a thousand times. Here's one time for instance

You have the bad luck to have Cyberzombie, Silva, and Zak S jumping in on your thread. I'm sorry about that. They have stupid ideas and are stupid about defending them. All three of those mouth breathing cole slaw noggins hold that their opinions are right, and more importantly tautologically correct because they are their opinions. And opinions are relative and from their perspective their opinions are relatively correct for them and that's the end of it.

And that's why Zak S is constantly demanding that people apologize, and why Silva is always bitching about how we're all just too mired in 3rd edition Dungeons & Dragons thinking to appreciate Apocalypse World and RuneQuest. The problem with this line of bullshit is that it's bullshit. Relativism is not an internally consistent doctrine to make arguments with.

If we accepted that Zak S was right to claim that his dubious rulings were always perfect because he didn't notice any problem with them, we'd have to equally accept that PhoneLobster was right to claim that his rulings were horseshit because he did. Zak S' demand for an apology is based on the idea that he is right because relativism, but if you actually accepted that then everyone else would also be right! His very basis for demanding an apology would, if accepted as a valid premise, logically lead to the conclusion that no one had to apologize for anything. Of course, we don't accept his relativistic premises, which just makes his constant repetitive bleatings for apologies moar hilarious.
-Username17

And #3

Why are people arguing with this lunatic?

I asked the same question about Shadzar once. Turns out the answer is that Zak, Shadzar, etc. etc. are basically intellectual freak shows. Everyone lines up to watch their bizarre and crippled arguments and feel better about themselves because every single person in the audience is basically guaranteed to never have been even close to being as wrong as the trainwreck on display. The instinctive purpose of arguments is to increase prestige by winning them rather than to actually arrive at a correct conclusion, and Zak S. is both clearly wrong and very unpopular, which makes him an easy opponent. At this point, Zak S. has committed himself to so many bad positions, and refuses to give even an inch on any of them regardless of evidence presented, that he is an easier fight than most strawmen. Seriously: I've seen lots of strawmanning on this forum, and most of the strawman arguments are easier to defend than things Zak S is actually saying right now.

Chamomile that's really interesting and feels true for me if I look at my own emotional state. Most of the time I enjoy arguing on this forum because it is intellectually stimulating and enjoyable in an educational sense but going into Zak S or Silva threads makes me feel good, like physically good. It is definitely more about feeling good about yourself by laughing at the intellectual cripple. It feels very primitive and base. I don't oppose that inherently but it is interesting to think about it as basically the debate version of the show "Jackass".

[TiaC]

I honestly am starting to think that this is some really impressive satire.

[Zak S]

A few things:

#1: I would like for Zak S to comment on his being factually wrong that 1's are auto-failures on ability and skill checks. Zak since you have access to the internet, can check the SRD, and are very keen on people apologizing when incorrect I wonder if you would like to comment on you using factually incorrect information in your defense.

Since when are my rules the SRD?

If we accepted that Zak S was right to claim that his dubious rulings were always perfect

Every time you say this you're lying. I will quote myself again:

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.

So: you've fucked up.

[Kaelik]

The thing that's really weird about this whole thing is that Zak S appears to be sufficiently arrogant to believe that he actually did complete the task "100%." That's odd of course, because he was asked for a social currency system and produced something wasn't a social currency system at all. We can discuss whether it was terrible, and indeed pretty much everyone who has read it has determined that it is, in fact, extremely bad. But everyone should be able to see that if the design goal is "make a social currency system" and you produce something that is not a social currency system and walk away, that you very definitely didn't complete the task.

We could have a debate whether writing something that was either "social" or currency entailed completing the task to 50% or 0%, but 100% is clearly outside the possible discussion space. If something isn't social currency, then obviously it can't possibly be considered a 100% completion of a request to make social currency. It's just not even a thing that sane people can even suggest as a possibility.

Personally, I lean towards the opinion that Zak's failure was total and complete. But I could definitely see a rational person arguing that he only half failed on the grounds that he did write up some things which could generously be called social guidelines. Zak S' claim that he completed the task 100% cannot be taken seriously. That is demonstrably a narcissistic delusion. The amount of narcissism required to think that was even a thing that could be seriously suggested in discussion is genuinely pathological. My suggestion, my serious suggestion, as a doctor, is to get psychological help. There is no magical cure that makes narcissistic personality disorder go away, but some patients do better taking anti-anxiety or anti-psychotic medications.

-Username17

I'd say in before Zak S dodges your argument in bad faith by whining about how you dodge arguments in bad faith... But I'm pretty sure that ignored post above is already him doing that.

EDIT: It turns out it was the post before that one. He is getting quick on the fingers.

[Kaelik]

Every time you say this you're lying. I will quote myself again:

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.

So: you've fucked up.

Every time you say this you are lying. I will quote myself again:

I am genuinely curious, would you take gambling advice from someone who said that both the Seattle Seahawks and the Denver Broncos would win the Super Bowl? If not, why do you not hold yourself to the same standard. No one is failing to read your statements, they are alleging that in addition to those statements, you also made other statements which fail to meet some quality. [An example of someone saying you said something.]

You can either: 1) Say this is a good thing. 2) Say this quote did not happen. 3) Say this quote is being misinterpreted or is out of context.

But saying "Here is me predicting the Seahawks would win the superbowl, so your quote of me predicting the Broncos is irrelevant" is completely fucking stupid and missing the point.

[Zak S]

Mod Edit: This is sufficiently close to the no linking/"threads" thread rule that I'm not going to allow it. In the interest of fairness, Zak "threads" threaded this thread on some other forum and quoted the folks from that forum in a post on this thread.

[The Great Fence Builder Speaks]
Zak, if it keeps me from having to edit out links and quotes from other forums, I hereby stipulate on behalf of TGDMB.com that there are at least two dozen people on the internet who think we are "rules-obsessed" assholes.
[/TGFBS]

Now then, Zak concluded his post with:

So the ad populum fallacy cuts both ways.