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

[tussock]

Zak, the point of your blog post was to demean people who would play the kazoo for a bonus to something else they cared about, rather than only playing the kazoo because they cared about being a kazoo player.

That's it. You hate those people, and so does Monte Cook. Get off my lawn, etc.

Now perhaps your rules are meant to head off asshole behavior by assholes.

There is a disagreement as to people being bad for doing these things. When people use the tools you provide them in ways you did not immediately intend, we do not think them bad. We think the rules to be interesting enough to explore and comment on, at least momentarily.

We're not heading off "assholes". We are the "assholes" as you would say, but we're fixing your rule so it works like you want for your crowd and also lets us play in your game without offending you and also lets us play in games full of assholes who wouldn't take offence. And it's really easy. And you're just not listening because of your whole ... "Zak S" thing.

And, that, to us, makes you seem the asshole. Idiot. Troll. Head-up-ass. Just, bad.

[nockermensch]

This thread is worse because it is happening again.

I know it keeps happening.

Damn, Misty. I read zug's comment and thought about posting this too.

[schpeelah]

I wouldn't know how to even attempt to play in your group, unless I sat down with you for like five hours and asked how your game handles every possible action I could imagine wanting to perform and writing it down to refer to. I mean, just on this bit above, I don't know if by "Spells, saves and to-hit and bonuses for sunday come out of 3.5 mostly" and "spells, saves and to hit for monday come out of AD&D mostly" you mean the rules actually change based on the day of the week (and whether that's in game or out of game day of the week, and whether that's two different games if out of game day of the week), or if Monday and Sunday are stand in text for something else.

While I have never imagined something as radical swapping game editions, Zak pretty clearly is talking about a situation where he introduces this rule on the fly into a running campaign to buff the guy with the lute in Diplomacy, and then the other characters - who already existed and established themselves as not musical - also buy lutes since the rule says they can use them for bonuses too. And the players of these characters are thus assholes, as is anyone who tells Zak it's going to happen.

[Stubbazubba]

Mind puke

Remember this one thing: you started this, you brought this all on yourself, by saying

Now, right off there are people who'll tell you Musical Instrument (small) is wretchedly broken.

...

The upside is mechanically superior to the downside in a predictable way, and the price is an amount of gp that's negligible for any PC who has had any adventures. Period. It's a good deal--why wouldn't they take it?

...

Now the people who'd say this are awful.

...

And anyone who is going to do all that--someone who is going to play through a scene they don't want to play through just to get a mechanical advantage--is a boring person with no sense of style who you should kick out of your game.

...

And this pretty much goes for all kinds of supposedly unbalancing tactics in the game.

Got that? This was never about "me and my group play fairy tea party rules that I make up because they can't even tell what's going on," nor is this about "Hey, different strokes for different folks," or anything like that. We here uphold and support the ability of every table to play with whatever bone-headed rules (or lack thereof) they want.

That's not what you did. You attacked other people's play preferences. You said other people at other tables are awful and should be thrown out of their games. That makes you the asshole. Full stop.

Now you say this:

See if you can follow this:

That's why your rules are for your game and your GMing style and your group.

And my separate rules are for my game and my GMing style and my groups.

You see that? That's not anything like what you said on your attention-whoring blog.

Now on top of that, you did all of this with a bad rule that doesn't even do what you want it to do. And you are justifying your bad rule saying that every rule can be abused, and since only awful people abuse rules, the rule therefore isn't bad, it's just being abused. Every time.

You are arguing that rules, like speech, can neither be bad nor good, only used appropriately and "abused." They're just rules, and all of them should be protected from criticism because people are still having fun despite them. Any use of a rule that doesn't conform to your exceptionally limited foresight must therefore be abuse, and anyone who uses it as such is awful, and would taunt other players about deceased children.

And you're wrong about all of this. Rules aren't neutral, they have predictable, foreseeable effects, and we judge rules based on their effect. Protections for speech are not arbitrary, they have an effect on society that keeps people in power relatively accountable, and that's an effect we value, so we keep the rule.

As a game designer who publishes rules for public consumption, you invite criticism if you have completely and utterly failed to foresee the basic implications of your own rule. Complex implications are more forgivable (though a company with reasonable means should try to tease those out through testing and figure out a fix, but that's not the case here), but that isn't what's going on here; your rule doesn't upset you because someone combines it with some other relatively obscure rule, no, your rule upsets you because people use it on its own, and it does what you wrote it to do, and you get upset. That's, that's just inexcusable, even in your own game group.

What's worse is you then point out how everyone is applying it, explicitly acknowledge that that is a good, smart use of the rule, and then just say "that's not the rule's problem, it's the players': they're bad people for using it that way because I didn't want them to."

By doing so, you eliminate any possible difference between good rules and bad rules. And you explicitly do so in the last line I quoted from your blog post, applying this same rationale to anything that is even alleged to be broken. If that's the case, no rule can even be bad. This isn't the same as protecting all speech, it's the same as protecting all laws, even Jim Crow laws, even slavery laws, because you can always shove the fault onto the malfeasor, not the law itself. That's pants-on-head insane.

Can you imagine saying "Slavery isn't wrong, it's just that slave owners are assholes; they could choose to pay their slaves and provide for them well, and that's really what the rule is for, that's what I imagined it for at least. They're just awful people and are abusing a perfectly good law." Because that is what you're saying.

But whatever, I'm in way over your head. The basic point is

No, Zak, you started this

[Mistborn]

But whatever, I'm in way over your head. The basic point is

No, Zak, you started this

[deaddmwalking]

Going back to your original blog post, titled Boredom is its Own Balance, you indicated that if people took mechanically superior options (that they did not actually care for) to achieve their character goals, they would necessarily be bored. People who indicate people will choose mechanically superior options over inferior options when given the choice are called 'awful'. Now, I've said that your rule about playing musical instruments won't cause everyone to get one - besides conflicts with character concept as a potential issue, you've gone on record indicating that there are 'a bajillion' ways to get a similar bonus.

Your post did not talk about why this rule 'worked for your group', or why a rule like this 'might not work for most groups'. You called people who would find a rule like this 'bad' awful.

Calling someone you don't know 'awful' is much worse than calling a rule 'bad'.

If you say "this rule is bad" you are an asshole who thinks the world revolves around you or you believe only majorities have the right to games they enjoy.

Here's the thing. You're wrong.

Among the definitions of 'bad' is: of poor or inferior quality

If you have two banannas, one that is ripe and one that is spoiled, calling the second one 'bad' does not mean you are an asshole. The fact that some people prefer overripe bananas (I hear they're sweeter) doesn't make the first person an asshole. If the second person eats and enjoys the overripe banana, the fact that the first one says "I didn't eat it - it was bad" doesn't make the first person an asshole. Something can be of 'inferior quality' and still be enjoyable. That said, we would expect that, given the choice, most people would prefer the superior option.

Your rule is not 'bad' because it does not prevent problems that never occur at your table. Your rule is 'bad' because there are better ways to achieve your stated goal that do not have the potential issue that your rule has. Of course, we can't actually speak to the 'rule' presented in your blog. You have made it clear that the 'full rule' was not revealed, so we are only able to discuss an incomplete understanding and any interpretation is subject to 'gotcha' attacks when we fail to understand a critical element.

But this isn't about 'your rule' being bad (it is). It is about you calling people 'awful' or 'assholes' because they think the rule is bad.

WAY 2: This one has nothing to do with rules, really: Another way to be an asshole is to play a non-tournament game with no prize at stake (by any rules) and prioritize your imaginary person's advancement and imaginary "success" over the group as a whole's fun. It's selfish and evil.

And this is where you're once again wrong. Or at least, strawmanning so hard that you might as well be. At a micro-level, I don't enjoy getting hit in combat. I hate taking hit point damage. It's just not fun for me, at all. On the other hand, I really like winning at combat. To crush my enemies, see them driven before me, and hear the lamenation of their women? I'm all about that. So how could I achieve that if I didn't risk taking hit point damage? The fact is, I can't.

I work very hard to minimize one aspect (I wear armor, I try not to get surrounded, I react tactically) which also allows me to maximize the other aspect (playing smart helps me win at combat). Ultimately, success is fun. And not just for me. Success is fun for the group. As has been pointed out many times in this thread, 'success' gives the players more control of the narrative. In the simplest form, when you succeed 'good things happen' and when you fail 'bad things happen'. If you enjoy good things, you'll want to 'succeed', even if you don't actually enjoy the thing you're doing at that moment.

I've never enjoyed 'picking locks'. But I do enjoy bypassing barriers. It's a useful skill in the game that allows me to move to parts of the game I like (getting treasure) and avoid parts of the game I don't like (getting murdered by monsters who don't want me to steal their treasure).

Choosing success does not mean prioritizing it 'over fun'.

Now perhaps your rules are meant to head off asshole behavior by assholes. It does mean using the rules makes you an asshole--it means that part of the rules is only necessary because you fear there may be assholes.

Here's the thing. Your rule is not really open for 'abuse' in a meaningful way. It's a bullshit bonus on a bullshit check that has no rules around it. Which is fine - that's how most social systems work. But you're extrapolating to things that actually do create 'problems' in the game.

Imagine you created an item in your game that could, if used, kill all the enemies within 100' of me. Let's also pretend for a moment that it had unlimited uses. And let's pretend for a moment that enemies received no save - if I use the item, they just die. This is 'broken'.

The reason is that now my 'fun' is in conflict. Winning a fight is fun - but most of that comes from potential risk. Outsmarting my opponents, making tactical choices - those are things that make the combat fun. But dying is very much not fun. So I can 'win' in a boring way, or I can 'lose' and that won't be fun. There's a real conflict between 'being effective' and 'having fun'.

Good rules try to avoid that.

When people point out that your rule about musical instruments is 'bad', that's what they're saying.

[Kaelik]

That's not what you did. You attacked other people's play preferences. You said other people at other tables are awful and should be thrown out of their games. That makes you the asshole. Full stop.

Spoiler Alert. This was known from at the latest November of 24, 2013.

I think games without training wheels from the start need to exist.

...

Asserting the original suit was "worthless" isn't rational. It is worthless to the customer who assumed it would fit but it should never be sold that way.

So just to be clear, playing a rulings not rules game is substantially superior to all those shitty bad people who play games that are tactically challenging while focusing on player agency?

See, this is why I hate whiny shits who talk about "to each their own" without fail you always actually mean "don't criticize me, but actually, yeah, the way you play the game is shitty and you are a loser."

[DSMatticus]

Something (and the only thing) Zak S's last post did contain: a 500 word response to a 25 word snippet of a 300 word post.

Something Zak S's last post did not contain: any response at all to any of the countless other arguments flying at him.

Something Zak S's last post did not contain: "oh yeah, AH and DSM are right, there are examples of me being a giant deceitful asshole in this thread. It was wrong of me to accuse AH of being a liar for calling me on the shit I have very clearly been caught doing."

This is why you cannot argue with Zak in the way you're trying. He just blatantly fucking dodged everything in the entire thread except for one sentence, and then used that one sentence as a launchpad for an explosion of text that will be wrong in a myriad of ways for you to take down all over again. When Zak first showed up, that shit was somewhat understandable: everyone was telling him he was stupid for a half dozen reasons, and it would have been basically impossible for one man to respond to everything. But at this point, it's obviously deliberate and he's doing it to avoid arguments as they become uncomfortable for him. For fuck's sake, when AH accused him of being dishonest he issued a challenge for proof and called AH a liar. And when that challenge was met and proof dropped in his lap, he just wandered off to argue about something else. That is what Zak does when you score on the goals he is defending.

Both as a matter of effectively dealing with Zak's gish gallop and as a matter of simple propriety, I'm pretty sure the correct answer here is to just keep reminding him that happened until he either apologizes and concedes that point to AH or says something else stupid and insane about prior restraint. It's an example in which he very obviously tried to weasel out of being wrong by rewriting history, and when he couldn't do that anymore he ran away. It's exactly the sort of thing you need to press him on in order to shut down his gish gallop - you can't let him start the battle anew everytime you have him dead to rights.

[deaddmwalking]

Both as a matter of effectively dealing with Zak's gish gallop and as a matter of simple propriety, I'm pretty sure the correct answer here is to just keep reminding him that happened until he either apologizes and concedes that point to AH or says something else stupid and insane about prior restraint.

If only this was true. Unfortunately, we've already learned that instead he will say 'already responded to'. He will of course refuse to quote himself doing so, and instead instruct you to Google his name, the thread, and some phrase that he (presumably) believes to be relevant (even though it clearly is not).

[darkmaster]

Among the definitions of 'bad' is: of poor or inferior quality

If you have two banannas, one that is ripe and one that is spoiled, calling the second one 'bad' does not mean you are an asshole. The fact that some people prefer overripe bananas (I hear they're sweeter) doesn't make the first person an asshole. If the second person eats and enjoys the overripe banana, the fact that the first one says "I didn't eat it - it was bad" doesn't make the first person an asshole. Something can be of 'inferior quality' and still be enjoyable. That said, we would expect that, given the choice, most people would prefer the superior option.

Since talking about Bananas is actually way more interesting than this dumb conversation about shitmuffin. You are, of course, right, but you're example is terrible because it's clear you're falling prey to a common misconception.

First, you have never seen a ripe banana. I know this because all bananas on the mass market are picked completely green and once you pick a fruit from the plant it comes from that fruit is dead and cannot, in fact, ripen. Now what actually happens as a banana turns yellow is the starch inside the fruit is its starch reserves are turning to sugars the tongue can actually taste. Now, when you start to get soft spots and streaks on the peel, that means the banana is perfect for eating because unless it's been dropped or something, those are sugar spots and it means that the banana is as sweet as it will be before actually rotting. But people have been conditioned by the markets to believe yellow is better because they can hold yellow bananas longer and so most people will actually choose the inferior banana given the choice.

[Zak S]

We are the "assholes" as you would say, but we're fixing your rule so it works.

You haven't fixed anything. One person said a bunch of (unworkable for us 3.5 rules) superceded it, nothing else anyone's said is a fix. If you have such a fix, type it out or link to it. Do your job Crunchy Rules Forum Guy.

[Zak S]

At a micro-level, I don't enjoy getting hit in combat. I hate taking hit point damage. It's just not fun for me, at all.

So design a game where you never get hit, and play that.

[Scrivener]

Among the definitions of 'bad' is: of poor or inferior quality

If you have two banannas, one that is ripe and one that is spoiled, calling the second one 'bad' does not mean you are an asshole. The fact that some people prefer overripe bananas (I hear they're sweeter) doesn't make the first person an asshole. If the second person eats and enjoys the overripe banana, the fact that the first one says "I didn't eat it - it was bad" doesn't make the first person an asshole. Something can be of 'inferior quality' and still be enjoyable. That said, we would expect that, given the choice, most people would prefer the superior option.

Since talking about Bananas is actually way more interesting than this dumb conversation about shitmuffin. You are, of course, right, but you're example is terrible because it's clear you're falling prey to a common misconception.

First, you have never seen a ripe banana. I know this because all bananas on the mass market are picked completely green and once you pick a fruit from the plant it comes from that fruit is dead and cannot, in fact, ripen. Now what actually happens as a banana turns yellow is the starch inside the fruit is its starch reserves are turning to sugars the tongue can actually taste. Now, when you start to get soft spots and streaks on the peel, that means the banana is perfect for eating because unless it's been dropped or something, those are sugar spots and it means that the banana is as sweet as it will be before actually rotting. But people have been conditioned by the markets to believe yellow is better because they can hold yellow bananas longer and so most people will actually choose the inferior banana given the choice.

Bananas do actually ripen off the vine, plants that do are called Climacteric. There is no difference between a vine ripened banana and a one ripened after it is picked. No extra chemical process occurs, no extra sugars are added by the banana tree.

As far as banana color and market conditioning, I actually prefer green bananas because they are starchier and less sweet. Brown bananas, while technically ideally ripe, smell more and have a much softer texture, making them less suited for transportation. The ideal yellow banana is not a pure market construct, there are valid reasons to prefer a slightly underripe fruit.

[momothefiddler]

In bananas, much like in apples, I am far more interested in a firm texture than I am in additional sweetness. And while a banana I'd consider ideal is far mushier than the threshold of apples I won't eat, in both cases the softness is quickly offputting and makes them, in my opinion, only usable for cooking.

[Stubbazubba]

In bananas, much like in apples, I am far more interested in a firm texture than I am in additional sweetness. And while a banana I'd consider ideal is far mushier than the threshold of apples I won't eat, in both cases the softness is quickly offputting and makes them, in my opinion, only usable for cooking.

Agreed. But I wonder if I'm just this way because I was brought up believing these things about fruit, or if there's something intrinsic about it?

[PhoneLobster]

And show some experimental respect toward the number of years and sessions the plane's been flying successfully for hundreds if not thousands of people (online DIY D&D play via G+ hangout is approaching its 3rd anniversary of weekly games now).

Oh my.

So if you aren't an entirely transparent lying shit bag then in order to run for even a fraction of that many people your bullshit unique frankenstien's monster of a rules set MUST all be methodically written out in some form accessible to "hundreds if not thousands of people". If not then they aren't playing your retarded cops and robbers mish mash.

So if there is a document or seven somewhere with your entire (or close enough) stupid on going "perfect first time then only clarified forever" precedence based "this is totally D&D and you should be familiar with it, but it is like no D&D foolish mortals such as yourself know of!" you can totally make that available for perusal.

Like RIGHT NOW. I'm sure doing that would only help your case and not present us with a vast pile of hilarious gibberish wanna be rules.

Though, sadly, you can't because hey. "Hundreds if not thousands" of players totally AREN'T playing a game that ONLY EXISTS INSIDE JUSTIN BIEBER'S FEVERISH IMAGINATION.

[Username17]

I've actually been to Africa and I've seen a naturally ripe banana. It does indeed ripen exactly the same on the tree as it does when you ship them green and spray ethylene on them. The bananas you get on the street in the tropics are better than the ones you get in grocery stores in the US, but that has fuck all to do with tree ripening magic. The reason is because there are actually a lot of different kinds of banana in the world and most of them taste better than the one kind of banana that is grown for export. Every single banana that ever appears in stores came from a tree that was a clone of one tree that happened to grow the second most transportable bananas on Earth, the Cavendish. This is because in the 1950s, a fungal root blight took out almost every tree on the planet that was growing the most transportable banana: the Gros Michel. Because when you grow tree clones, they are all susceptible to the same diseases.

Sometimes I do think the Den's readiness to belittle someone at the same time as critiquing their argument hinders the conversation.

Well, I would submit that you are fucking wrong, as this thread aptly demonstrates. Oh sure, shitmuffin is never going to back down because he's a liar and a fool, but did you notice that souran ate his fucking crow and ran away?

We didn't get a public apology or anything, but there's no reason to expect one. People, myself included, were simply very cruel to his idea that it was logical world building for people to ban others from doing things that might make them easier to get along with and generally more likable. The idea was extremely retarded and people made fun of him for it in some rather entertaining ways. And... that's it. He dropped the idea. There have been no further posts supporting that stupid idea, and there won't be any, because souran has conceded the point.

Cruelty and dickishness do work and get results. Not on shitmuffin of course, but anyone halfway reasonable is going to look at the fact that their idea has been roundly mocked and insulted and consider that possibly their idea is treated as if it had no merit because it has no merit. Where people really never drop their wrong ideas is on shitty hugbox forums or fake politeness forums. People just release the same shit on Paizo over and over again, because no one is allowed to just tell people that they are stupid and should feel stupid. So they never learn, and just keep making the same old mistakes, again and again.

Chickenshit conformist like your parents.

-Username17

[momothefiddler]

In bananas, much like in apples, I am far more interested in a firm texture than I am in additional sweetness. And while a banana I'd consider ideal is far mushier than the threshold of apples I won't eat, in both cases the softness is quickly offputting and makes them, in my opinion, only usable for cooking.

Agreed. But I wonder if I'm just this way because I was brought up believing these things about fruit, or if there's something intrinsic about it?

Well, I presume there's a strong element of learning in there, given all the foods some people like and other people don't (but can learn to like, given exposure).

On the other hand, I'm just really finicky about textures in general and I don't think I learned that in any direct manner, so the fruit thing might, for me, be more than that. I still doubt it's somehow intrinsic, and I'm certain that harder vs softer fruits aren't Objectively Better By The Laws Of The Universe or anything.

[Mistborn]

You haven't fixed anything. One person said a bunch of (unworkable for us 3.5 rules) superceded it, nothing else anyone's said is a fix. If you have such a fix, type it out or link to it. Do your job Crunchy Rules Forum Guy.

Given that your game is a unholy mishmash held together mostly by MTP, why should we suggest rules to you, your not going to apply them consistently anyway.

Still here's a shot, having 5 ranks in preform/NWP musical instrument/whatever grants a +2 synergy bonus to diplomacy rolls in (list social scenarios you feel music bonus is appropriate). That wasn't hard at all.

[Cyberzombie]

Well, I would submit that you are fucking wrong, as this thread aptly demonstrates. Oh sure, shitmuffin is never going to back down because he's a liar and a fool, but did you notice that souran ate his fucking crow and ran away?

Making people run away isn't winning an argument, it's just bullying. This isn't a staring contest. You don't win because you outlasted the other side and eventually he got sick of hearing insults and decided you weren't worth his time. That just means the other guy has more of a life than you do because he has better things to do than sit on an internet forum and read a bunch of insulting drivel. I mean unless your goal was to convince someone that you're an asshole, you have in all regards failed. He still thinks he's right, and your position looks weaker because you have to resort to insults in place of logical discourse.

Anyone who has held any kind of sales job will tell you that insulting someone is a terrible way to convince them to buy something. It doesn't help you in job interviews to insult your potential employer and call him an idiot. And you certainly aren't going to talk your way out of getting a traffic ticket if you start by calling the cop a moron. Insulting people is an objectively terrible way of convincing them of anything and anyone who has worked in a PR job of any kind will tell you that.

Insulting people isn't debating or arguing, it's just bullying. Plain and simple.

[PhoneLobster]

Insulting people isn't debating or arguing, it's just bullying. Plain and simple.

You are wrong and presenting a stupid idea. And people who present wrong stupid ideas are being stupid. People who are being stupid are stupid people. You are stupid. Me telling you that is being mean, bullying and insulting.

But If I cannot do that there isn't ACTUALLY an argument because I would have to pretend your idea ISN'T stupid and I would have to therefore lend not only YOU but also your stupid idea needless credibility by pretending it isn't stupid and entirely wrong.

And no, this isn't JUST an abstract example, your ideas and "concern trolling" (yes that is a thing, you should learn about it) wringing your hands about how "alienating" we are and how if only this place could have all it's good qualities and NOT have people being mean poopy heads to you and your stupid ideas, they ARE in fact specifically actual examples of stupid ideas that SHOULD be treated with derision.

Go look at the internet. There ARE other RPG forums that have other variations of rules about what you can and cannot say and how you can and cannot say it. You go to the ones where everyone is required to "be polite" or whatever you think you are concern trolling over.

Uniformly that "politeness" is used to police a system of passive aggressive bullying permitted if not encouraged and directly administered by the community managers to enforce their own ideas and ban those who disagree with those ideas for "having a tone they dislike" when explaining in detail why those ideas are clearly wrong.

Is that what you want? Well, yes actually I think it is. You predominantly present concern trolling arguments based largely in "You are mean to my ideas and I demand people enforce that my ideas receive respect!.". Well fuck you, your ideas don't deserve respect, especially the one where you want forum police wandering around ensuring that they do.

If all that isn't true, then why aren't you posting on the Utopia where there are internet RPG forum politeness police NOT abusing their powers to quash dissent. While you are at it, point me along I'll join you.

[Parthenon]

You know what is useful though? Pointing out that a rule is shitty and discussing it.

Yeah, that is useful. No doubt about that. In this particular case, I don't really see much point to it though, because the rule is attached to the social system, and social systems have been discussed to death on this forum without ever reaching anything close a satisfying conclusions. In the end most people here say "I hate using MTP, but there isn't anything that works better at producing anything close to real conversations."

I have no problem discussing rules, but there's no point in designing a new steering wheel for a car with a non-functional engine.

You know, that's fine and a reasonable position to take.

But you didn't make that argument for why we shouldn't discuss that rule!

You made the argument that we should accept shitty rules and avoid discussing any rule because nothing is perfect and the DM can fix anything.

But anyway, now that you've stopped using shitty arguments we don't need to argue.

[K]

I started enjoying this thread when talk turned to bananas.

[darkmaster]

I think we need a dedicated fruits and vegetable thread don't you?

[Ancient History]

Sure, it's all bananas and tomatoes until somebody brings up durian.