Why do people fetishize Magic Tea Party

[shadzar]

are we there yet? is the formatting screw ups over?

[zugschef]

It's amazing how much better this thread is if you don't read anything which Zak, Fuchs or Bobikus are writing.

[edit] I presume that everybody has Shadzar on ignore.

[Omegonthesane]

since this page is unreadable, can we just move on to the next one and hope for better legibility? this shit reads like the 1E DMG and you can't tell what the fuck is being aid by who and about what!

ok, maybe this page is a lot better than the 1e DMG, but still this is stupid!

Quoted as evidence that shadzar is using more brain cells than Zak S to post here.

[deaddmwalking]

As for Deanruel87, for all deadDMwalking's alleged "debate control" he didn't address any of the objections to his arguments on the next page, so until he does, he hasn't got a logical leg to stand on.

And most of what he said is based on ignoring....
(everybody now)

...page 11, second comment, item #2.

First off, you do not get to decide what logic is. You're wrong, and your attempts to claim to set the rules is an appeal to authority that I reject.

I have read everything you've posted, and there is nothing that can be considered an objection to my argument. My main contention is that you are tilting at windmills.

It is clear after 18 pages that you, and Fuchs, think that this thread is about 'why rules-heavy games are better than rules-lite games'. It's not. It never was.

For your benefit, in case you want to reconsider your posts for the last 15 pages, the contention is 'a game that fails to include rules that will be required to play is worse for that fact. While those failings can be covered by DM makes something up, that will, naturally, result in inconsistencies between tables, and possibly inconsistencies at the same table. While some may be improvements over whatever rule MIGHT have been included in the published product, it is highly unlikely that ALL of them would be. Having a good rule is better than having a bad rule. Not having a rule at all and expecting people to come up with something on their own is at least as bad as having a bad rule (in some cases).'

If you're a game publisher, you aren't going to stop people from replacing your rules with houserules (nor would you want to). But if you're a game publisher, you want to provide rules to cover expected actions. While some tables will either choose not to use those rules or replace them with 'better' rules, at a minimum, anyone could run the game 'as written' and cover all expected actions.

These statements are not specific to rules-heavy or rules-lite games. It has been the specific contention of several people that prefer rules-heavy games for their own personal use that rules-lite games are usually better at having rules for all required situations - because the rules tend to be general and abstract they apply to a lot of 'unusual' situations well.

Edit - And if we want to talk about brilliant posts, give Kaelik credit for his near the end of 16. Every single accusation he made against Zak S was not only correct, Zak was guilty once again of hypocrisy.

And since earlier Zak S. demanded I apologize for irrational belief, I would like to go on public record as apologizing for my Catholic faith.

[Fuchs]

For your benefit, in case you want to reconsider your posts for the last 15 pages, the contention is 'a game that fails to include rules that will be required to play is worse for that fact. While those failings can be covered by DM makes something up, that will, naturally, result in inconsistencies between tables, and possibly inconsistencies at the same table. While some may be improvements over whatever rule MIGHT have been included in the published product, it is highly unlikely that ALL of them would be. Having a good rule is better than having a bad rule. Not having a rule at all and expecting people to come up with something on their own is at least as bad as having a bad rule (in some cases).'

If you're a game publisher, you aren't going to stop people from replacing your rules with houserules (nor would you want to). But if you're a game publisher, you want to provide rules to cover expected actions. While some tables will either choose not to use those rules or replace them with 'better' rules, at a minimum, anyone could run the game 'as written' and cover all expected actions.

These statements are not specific to rules-heavy or rules-lite games. It has been the specific contention of several people that prefer rules-heavy games for their own personal use that rules-lite games are usually better at having rules for all required situations - because the rules tend to be general and abstract they apply to a lot of 'unusual' situations well.

Inconsistencies between tables don't matter at all with most rules since there always will be such differenes. People generally play with house rules, even if they don't realize it - sometimes it takes the form of an unspoken agreement, sometimes it's just a habit of the GM not to use some Monster or tactic.

Even inconsistencies at the same table don't matter at all with rules that do not get used often because those rules do not get used often, and therefore are not important (and everyone already forgot them, or there would not be a ruling in the first place).

That's the point people in this thread seem to forget: In rules light games, not many rules are actually important for the game. They are not required for play in the sense that they need to be codified. As I posted before: I can't even remember when the "doused with oil and set on fire" rule came up the last time in my weekly game. A rule covering that situation is therefore not required for my current game. The same can be said for many other rules.

And lastly: "Pick a DC and stat/skill/modifier and let the player roll" covers a lot of situations, and can technically be called a rule, even if it basically means "make a ruling".

[deaddmwalking]

Inconsistencies between tables don't matter at all with most rules since there always will be such differenes. People generally play with house rules, even if they don't realize it - sometimes it takes the form of an unspoken agreement, sometimes it's just a habit of the GM not to use some Monster or tactic.

This is absolutely true, and nobody in this thread has claimed to the contrary. They have instead pointed out that if you are a publisher, knowing that individual tables are probably going to change your rules does not justify producing bad rules or leaving out rules that are necessary to play.

Under any other context, pushing work onto the end user (without clearly identifying that up front) is considered unacceptable.

If you purchased a new computer game, you'd expect it to 'work' as shipped. You would not expect to have to write code to turn it into a functioning product. YOU MIGHT want to modify it, but at the very least, it should work without any modification. In computer games, this is ideal. You have a working game, but if you want to 'Mod' your game, you can. Having a game that only functions with a 'Mod' or self-written patch is not good.

Even inconsistencies at the same table don't matter at all with rules that do not get used often because those rules do not get used often, and therefore are not important (and everyone already forgot them, or there would not be a ruling in the first place).

I will agree that they 'may not matter', but I will not agree that they 'don't matter'. It may matter a great deal to some people, and these theoretical people are not necessarily unreasonable. If you decide to set someone on fire and the GM tells you you need to make an attack roll, then an Agility check, then they get an Agility save, then they get a luck save (4 points of failure) and 2 months later your friend tries to set someone on fire and he only requires an Agility save from the target (1 point of failure) it is conceivable that the first player would feel that was inconsistent to his detriment.

Although this continues a hypothetical example well beyond what is necessary, it puts this individual in a crappy position. If they complain, they're making it harder for their ally to do something that benefits the team. If they don't complain, they may feel resentful that they didn't have an equal chance for success when they originally came up with the idea. Although Zak S has steadfastly refused to acknowledge it, we are human beings, and we all have irrational emotional responses.

That's the point people in this thread seem to forget: In rules light games, not many rules are actually important for the game. They are not required for play in the sense that they need to be codified.

I'm not sure if I can agree here. In a rules-lite game, there aren't many rules, so they are ALL important. They pretty much need to be codified. Now, every possible CIRCUMSTANCE that a rule applies would not need to be codified (if it was, we wouldn't call it rules-lite).

As I posted before: I can't even remember when the "doused with oil and set on fire" rule came up the last time in my weekly game. A rule covering that situation is therefore not required for my current game. The same can be said for many other rules.

This may be true, but if you're designing a game where that's something people do (and I've seen enough movies to know that it is absolutely something people like to see) you're going to want to include rules for it. If you want to encourage the tactic, you make the action likely to succeed, or if you make it difficult to succeed, you make the consequences extremely good. If you want it to happen rarely, you make it difficult to pull off, or you make the consequences minor (or both). If you want a game where people set others on fire but your rules make it either extremely difficult and/or not worth doing in the first place, we can point out that your rules have failed. Having a good rule is best. Having no rule is not justified by knowing that individual DMs can create one (since we know that some will create good ones, but some will create bad ones... The worst DMs will say 'there is no rule so you can't do that').

And lastly: "Pick a DC and stat/skill/modifier and let the player roll" covers a lot of situations, and can technically be called a rule, even if it basically means "make a ruling".

I absolutely agree. Documenting that as a reasonable 'in any situation you don't know what to do - do this' is fine.

From the first page, it was agreed that MTP and rulings are a necessary part of every game. While not every situation can or should be covered, deliberately failing to include rules for situations that you expect to come up commonly is a failure. Including rules that don't work for a situation that is expected to come up commonly is a failure.

Individual tables can cover for that failure (and they do), but as a designer, you should never require them to do. It should always be their option, never a requirement.

[Fuchs]

I will agree that they 'may not matter', but I will not agree that they 'don't matter'. It may matter a great deal to some people, and these theoretical people are not necessarily unreasonable. If you decide to set someone on fire and the GM tells you you need to make an attack roll, then an Agility check, then they get an Agility save, then they get a luck save (4 points of failure) and 2 months later your friend tries to set someone on fire and he only requires an Agility save from the target (1 point of failure) it is conceivable that the first player would feel that was inconsistent to his detriment.

If I as the Player even remembered the earlier ruling I'd mention it and we can use the earlier ruling. If I don't remember the ealier ruling it's very unlikely I would feel that the second ruling was inconsistent.

Should the rules produced by a dev be good? Yes. Should people expect all of the good rules be used by any group? No. Is the fact that a rule gets forgotten by an entire group a sign it's not really important for that group? Yes.

The trick for the publisher is how to make sure they cover the needs of their target audience without driving too many customers away. And for that claiming that everyone will be happier with more rules is not helpful.

There are a number of computer games that drove me off not because they had bugs, but because they were tedious to play and demanded too much of my time to learn the ins and outs, and there was no way to cut the tedious parts out. That's not that much of a problem with pen and paper games, but even there I might skip a game I have to trim down ("mod") a lot until I can play it, and pick a game I only have to mod a little to play it.

[deaddmwalking]

I will agree that they 'may not matter', but I will not agree that they 'don't matter'. It may matter a great deal to some people, and these theoretical people are not necessarily unreasonable. If you decide to set someone on fire and the GM tells you you need to make an attack roll, then an Agility check, then they get an Agility save, then they get a luck save (4 points of failure) and 2 months later your friend tries to set someone on fire and he only requires an Agility save from the target (1 point of failure) it is conceivable that the first player would feel that was inconsistent to his detriment.

If I as the Player even remembered the earlier ruling I'd mention it and we can use the earlier ruling. If I don't remember the ealier ruling it's very unlikely I would feel that the second ruling was inconsistent.

But if the first ruling was bad, you're now in a situation where you must either argue for a rule that you might consider objectively worse than the new ruling (for the sake of consistency) or accept that the new ruling stands, but your contributions to the game are minimized by a prior bad ruling.

Going back to the first two pages of this discussion, everyone agreed that there are going to be situations that require some type of ruling. No ruleset can be 100% comprehensive, and even if it is, it is still likely to require too much work to use (on some level, every aspect of an RPG has to be reduced in complexity - in 3.x D&D an attack roll combines movement, feints, difficult terrain, training, weather, luck and more into a single d20 roll). Assuming that you accept that some number of rulings will have to happen does not require that you simultaneously accept that the designer does not have an obligation to produce rules for those situations that are expected to occur. [See 4th edition skill challenges]

Should the rules produced by a dev be good? Yes. Should people expect all of the good rules be used by any group? No. Is the fact that a rule gets forgotten by an entire group a sign it's not really important for that group? Yes.

Again, I agree. House rules are an important part of the game. Even a 'good rule' can be changed to better fit the flavor of a particular game. Sometimes, tables do come up with 'better rules' than the designers. But knowing that some groups will replace a rule does not release the designer of the obligation to come up with at least one rule for that necessary function. Not every group will come up with a better rule - so you have to have something to 'stand in'. And if the 'stand in' rule at least works, groups only will need to change it if they want.

Bad rules and missing rules cannot be defended 'because tables can change the rules'. Good rules and included rules can be defended because 'tables can change the rules'. But bad rules and missing rules can only be defended with 'tables will have to change the rules'. That's something that should be the table's choice - and if the designer removes that choice by failing to produce usable rules, it is the designer that should be held responsible. While some groups ARE HAPPY to produce rules to 'fix' the game [please note, that includes most of the regular posters here], the designers shouldn't make it a requirement because not every group enjoys rules tinkering.

The trick for the publisher is how to make sure they cover the needs of their target audience without driving too many customers away. And for that claiming that everyone will be happier with more rules is not helpful.

Please be careful here. This discussion is not regarding the merits of rules-heavy versus rules-lite systems. It is not about 'more' or 'fewer' rules. It is about 'having functioning rules to cover expected actions'. If you have ONE RULE, but it covers everything, that's generally sufficient to ensure you're excluded from this discussion.

Now, it is also possible to discuss whether the rules actually work! If you have a single rule and it is supposed to apply in every situation but it doesn't produce the expected/desired results (and/or it doesn't actually RESOLVE anything) that's another issue that is worth a separate discussion.

But for this one - we're talking about designers who fail to include a rule either because they trust each table to 'figure it out' or include a rule that blatantly doesn't work so each table MUST 'figure it out' for the game to function.

There are a number of computer games that drove me off not because they had bugs, but because they were tedious to play and demanded too much of my time to learn the ins and outs, and there was no way to cut the tedious parts out.

Some games are tedious and not worth playing. The number of rules probably doesn't matter. One thing that I will grant is that, for an RPG, knowledge of the rules by the player is not strictly required. This is one reason the 'rulings not rules' can be so pervasive and persuasive. If I've started playing and I just tell the DM 'this is what I want to do' and the DM says 'this is what you need to for this to work', that's a valid play style and how most people were introduced to the game.

The thing is, when you don't know the rules, you don't know if the DM is applying them consistently or not. If you believe they are (whether true or not), your experience is likely to be positive. When you believe they are not (whether true or not) you are likely to have a negative experience.

Personally, I find that if everyone 'knows the rules' and the rules are 'applied consistently', the game tends to be better. People know what they can or can't do, and they don't have to spend a lot of time trying to analyze their options (referred to earlier in the thread as playing 20 questions). This is true for me regardless of the rule complexity.

[nockermensch]

I don't think this will actually solve the shitstorm here, but deaddmwalking said something that may be lost among the, uh... whatever is this you guys have been doing for the last 15 pages:

DM advice != Designer advice. The Den tends to worry more about what's actually Designer advice. "Do whatever seems fair and reasonable, and then stick with it" is passable DM advice, because the scope RPGs try to wrestle with is impossibly large and so there will always be parts that the rules don't cover. It's however bad, or at least very incomplete, advice for the designer.

NEXT: The Is-Ought problem discussion.

[shadzar]

why?

"Do whatever seems fair and reasonable, and then stick with it"

this is exactly what makes MtG work. the same company that makes the flagship RPG product.

you pretty much have to give the players just enough rope to hang themselves, and then let them figure it out from there.

you cannot make a game based on the player's imagination conform to some tournament style motive. this is where Frank Mentzer failed, because D&D tournaments were just a popularity contest. you can't win at a convention in a game that doesn't include a "win condition". nobody can.

thee is no single elimination, no double elimination... people just get to play for the sake of playing. THAT is what has been lost in RPG gaming, from both players AND designers.

the games are played to "win", not to play.

Inconsistencies between tables don't matter at all with most rules since there always will be such differenes. People generally play with house rules, even if they don't realize it - sometimes it takes the form of an unspoken agreement, sometimes it's just a habit of the GM not to use some Monster or tactic.

This is absolutely true, and nobody in this thread has claimed to the contrary. They have instead pointed out that if you are a publisher, knowing that individual tables are probably going to change your rules does not justify producing bad rules or leaving out rules that are necessary to play.

to fix 1st AD&D they did print lots of rules for people, and how did that work? everyone tried to use everything without understanding it was meant to merge together yourself.

D&D set out to give you tools to play with and build what you wanted, not a model kit, to assemble what they wanted you to build. it isn't a piece of Ikea furniture, but a cord of wood, some saws, a drill, hammer, screws, nails and glue.

sadly with WotC, there are far too many screws, and ALL of them are loose.

Under any other context, pushing work onto the end user (without clearly identifying that up front) is considered unacceptable.

have you ever used an electronic device made post home gaming consoles? since NES just about every electronic device has been made broken. read about PS4 and Xbox ONE....

putting out poor product without warning is the way the world works today. Caveat Emptor.

[Cyberzombie]

From the first page, it was agreed that MTP and rulings are a necessary part of every game. While not every situation can or should be covered, deliberately failing to include rules for situations that you expect to come up commonly is a failure. Including rules that don't work for a situation that is expected to come up commonly is a failure.

Everyone can agree bad rules are a failure.

The big question though is what actually requires rules. That's something that every system has different ideas on. The problem is that rules take time to look-up and apply and not every group wants to waste that time.

People want the game to go fast and rulings, while imprecise, happen very quickly. Case in point: encumbrance. I've seen only one D&D DM (all editions) that meticulously added up how much weight people were carrying and constantly tracked it, and in that case the players groaned every time they had to do it. Most people do not want to do all that math. Every group used the 3E armor encumbrance rule, because it was simple, but encumbrance by weight was something that almost everyone ignored.

No doubt many will say you need an encumbrance by weight system, but in practice, very few groups will ever use it. Is it really needed or can the DM just adhoc it for the guy that fills a backpack with 2000 gold pieces? One might argue that the DM will get it wrong, and might encumber you for carrying 1500 gold when your strength lets you carry 1800, but most people aren't particularly going to care about exact numbers. Getting the calculator out is a pain in the ass, and we can just agree to live with the DM's ruling and not spend 15 minutes of game time playing accountant.

Now, some people might be allergic to fun and want to actually run the encumbrance audit everytime, but that's not something normal groups do. Weight-based encumbrance systems should be left to computer games, and even there they can get annoying.

[Fuchs]

I will agree that they 'may not matter', but I will not agree that they 'don't matter'. It may matter a great deal to some people, and these theoretical people are not necessarily unreasonable. If you decide to set someone on fire and the GM tells you you need to make an attack roll, then an Agility check, then they get an Agility save, then they get a luck save (4 points of failure) and 2 months later your friend tries to set someone on fire and he only requires an Agility save from the target (1 point of failure) it is conceivable that the first player would feel that was inconsistent to his detriment.

If I as the Player even remembered the earlier ruling I'd mention it and we can use the earlier ruling. If I don't remember the ealier ruling it's very unlikely I would feel that the second ruling was inconsistent.

But if the first ruling was bad, you're now in a situation where you must either argue for a rule that you might consider objectively worse than the new ruling (for the sake of consistency) or accept that the new ruling stands, but your contributions to the game are minimized by a prior bad ruling.

My contributions to the game might be diminished, but not by any relevant amount. They certainly are not minimized. It was just something so unimportant that we didn't even remember the rules for it, nor cared to check them.

If it would concern something dear to me/my character I'd care - but then, I'd have cared enough to know the rule. Or pushed for a better house rule.

[deaddmwalking]

Everyone can agree bad rules are a failure.

That would be a good starting point. The issue that some on this forum have had with 'rulings not rules' folks is an assertion that designers don't need to provide working rules because good DMs will fix the rules anyway.

I assert that if you have a functioning rule system, good DMs can change it in a way that improves the experience for their table, but especially new or inexperienced DMs can at least function.

There are those that claim bad rules aren't a problem because they ignore or fix those rules anyway.

The big question though is what actually requires rules. That's something that every system has different ideas on. The problem is that rules take time to look-up and apply and not every group wants to waste that time.

Having a rule doesn't require that it be used. There is no gaming-gestapo that shows up with guns to ensure you don't play 'wrong'. But yes, different systems will need different rules. Most people will, at some level, refuse to believe that a normal person can carry around 2 tons of gear without difficulty. There's nothing that requires that encumbrance rules require weight accounting (but that may be what we're most used to). This is a good example where having a rule (even if it is usually ignored) is helpful. If someone has 2,000 pounds of gear, the DM can say 'hey, according to the rules you're limited to 300 pounds of gear if you want to be able to move'. This helps ensure that people that care about realism (which not everyone does) can enjoy a ruleset that also is enjoyed by people who care less about realism.

In any case, the important rules are the ones that impact resolution. When two sides desire different outcomes (like an attack roll - one side wants to hit and the other side wants to avoid being hit) dice are preferred as a neutral arbiter of the action.

While I've been talking about absent or missing rules from a design perspective, I can understand why Zak S. and others feel that their 'rulings not rules' preferred play style is 'under attack'. Even if we all accept that 'functioning rules are better than non-functioning rules' (which, 18 pages later, we haven't reached consensus), there are certainly difference preferences regarding play style. While different preferences are perfectly valid, there are a number of reasons why I, personally, prefer 'rules over rulings'.

While I accept that there are certainly going to be unusual situations that require a ruling (off-hand, I don't know what the rules are to skate while juggling 4 chainsaws, make a jump across a chasm and try to 'drop' the chainsaws on an opponent), the 'rulings not rules' crowd likes to claim that speed of play is a major advantage of their preferred play style. To counter, if everyone knows the rules and is able to apply them quickly and easily, using the actual rules is faster than an ad-hoc ruling.

Folks like Zak S are not even in the 'rulings not rules' crowd. They have asserted that for many 'rules', they prefer not to know what they are until they come up. Then, rather than looking up the rule provided by the publisher, they prefer to create one that is situationally specific (a ruling). The reason they're inconsistent is that they then claim to apply that ruling consistently in the future - meaning that it is a 'rule', not a 'ruling'. It just happens to be a rule that was spontaneously generated during play. There certainly may be people that always create 'better' rules than the officially published ones (and more power to them) - but that is a rule that the players can't possibly know until it comes up.

I have seen some DMs make the claim that 'my players don't care to learn the rules' and therefore a 'rulings not rules' is fine - even if you were using the published rules, the players wouldn't know what they were, anyway, so from their perspective there is no difference. I would counter that if you're using 'rulings not rules', there is no reason for players to bother learning the rules - they're not being used anyway. It becomes a 'chicken and the egg' problem - do players choose not to learn the rules because they don't matter, or do the rules cease to matter because players choose not to learn them...

I certainly accept that there are people who prefer a 'rulings not rules' play style - but by and large, I see it more from DMs than players. As a player, when a DM is called on to make a ruling, it usually differs from the ruling I would make under similar circumstances. This is possible that my expectations change when I wear the player's cap (bias), or it may be based on difference perceptions of 'reasonable' expectations - but as a player, I often find rulings jarring.

[Zak S]

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.


deadDMwalking

It is clear after 18 pages that you, and Fuchs, think that this thread is about 'why rules-heavy games are better than rules-lite games'. It's not. It never was.

Incorrect, search this thread "zak s""superior""neither".

There you will find 100% complete refutation of that idea.

In order to be having a rational conversation, you have to address those statements.

'a game that fails to include rules that will be required to play

You have been asked to provide the name of a retroclone that does this and have failed to.

So your definition of "required for play" is unknown. Are post-casting flammability rules for Fireball "required for play".

You may now provide an example if you like.

a bunch of irrelevant stuff about inconsistencies fuchs already addresses on this page

and possibly inconsistencies at the same table.

And you either are willing to pay that price for the benefit of not having dead time where you look up minutiae at the table or you are not.

You haven't addressed that.

I will agree that they 'may not matter', but I will not agree that they 'don't matter'. It may matter a great deal to some people, and these theoretical people are not necessarily unreasonable.

That is true but has already been dealt with.

Search: this conversation "left handed scissors" "vegetarian""pizza""zak s"

Which, incidentally, is an issue from the previous conversation you have consistently ignored.

While some may be improvements over whatever rule MIGHT have been included in the published product, it is highly unlikely that ALL of them would be.

You have not addressed the idea that even if a ruling is worse, it is often a trivial price compared to the cost of having to memorize it or look it up.

The rule I do want is, in rules-detailed games, entangled in paragraphs of rules I don't want.

That is The Entanglement Issue: Thus far, all extant rules-detailed games have had the rules useful to R-n-R players and tables mixed in with the other rules in the design such that it is difficult to reference the basic rules you do need.

If you can invent a game (or, better-and-more likely voice-recognition ap) where looking up a rule is so fast it's trivial, then it would make everyone happy. But these do not exist so far and there is no proof-of-concept yet.

The possibility of a product (at least in book form) maximally useful to both audiences is difficult to imagine since one audience's maximum convenience would be served by having a short spell description (leaving out many clarifications some would consider essential) and the other would be served by having a long one (including clarifications and making the whole book longer and the different spells further apart on the page, entangling basics with detail--and, so far, always having the knock-on effect of having most products that refer to those spells also be longer and having similar entanglement issues).

Like if I picked up my phone, went "Evard's Black Tentacles" and my phone spits out a sentence of spell-description that takes less or trivially more time to read or listen to than the one I'd normally say at the table after someone announces they're casting it (and then if I asked for more detail I'd get it), you've almost made everyone happy and we don't even have to have this conversation.

After that you'd still want a book, for when someone picks spells--the 3.5 book gestures toward solving this problem by providing short and long descriptions, but the short descriptions lack ranges, durations etc. so we end up having to reference the long ones anyway (suboptimal).

Having a good rule is better than having a bad rule.

This premise is true and accepted, there is no need to repeat it.

The definition of "bad rule" is apparently contested, though, many people here have claimed there's some definable point down the tower of turtles at which a rule which eventually requires too much ruling is "bad". That point is as yet unspecified.

Not having a rule at all and expecting people to come up with something on their own is at least as bad as having a bad rule (in some cases).'

Here's the error: the rule they come up with might be worse, but the overall game might be better because see "cost" above.

If you're a game publisher, you aren't going to stop people from replacing your rules with houserules (nor would you want to). But if you're a game publisher, you want to provide rules to cover expected actions. While some tables will either choose not to use those rules or replace them with 'better' rules, at a minimum, anyone could run the game 'as written' and cover all expected actions.

Incorrect, you have

y
e
t


a
g
a
i
n

failed to address page 11, my second comment, item #2.

And if we want to talk about brilliant posts, give Kaelik credit for his near the end of 16. Every single accusation he made against Zak S was not only correct, Zak was guilty once again of hypocrisy.

Everything he said was countered afterwards and he gave no response. "WHY DON'T YOU STOP DOING (something I wasn't doing in the first place)" isn't a question anyone can answer.

As for hypocrisy:

Type what you think I am being hypocritical about, and I will explain the mistakes you made.

And since earlier Zak S. demanded I apologize for irrational belief, I would like to go on public record as apologizing for my Catholic faith.

That does go some way toward explaining your lack of interest in proof.

Having a game that only functions with a 'Mod' or self-written patch is not good.

A piece of paper only produces a drawing if you add paper and your own effort.

By your logic people shouldn't sell pencils.

If gamesI liked were labelled "Game making tools" and games you like were labelled "games" would that satisfy you?

Although Zak S has steadfastly refused to acknowledge it, we are human beings, and we all have irrational emotional responses.

This statement marks you as insane. I have never stated people don't have emotional responses.

If it is your contention that you are not insane: quote me saying this.

If this is hyperbole: congratulations, you just slowed down progress again.

People have minor conflicts "I wanna watch Bob's Burgers!""I wanna watch Archer!" all the time.

You must argue that these minor conflicts [b'any possible benefit of absent rules for any audience[/b] for your previous statements to be correct.

NOCKERMENSCH

I don't think this will actually solve the shitstorm here, but deaddmwalking said something that may be lost among the, uh... whatever is this you guys have been doing for the last 15 pages:

DM advice != Designer advice. The Den tends to worry more about what's actually Designer advice. "Do whatever seems fair and reasonable, and then stick with it" is passable DM advice, because the scope RPGs try to wrestle with is impossibly large and so there will always be parts that the rules don't cover. It's however bad, or at least very incomplete, advice for the designer.

You failed to note Page 11, my second comment, Item #1.

And if you go "why" then you failed to note the comment above near the word "cost"

I've just realized something, Zak has been fuching us all along. Think about it the argument he's constantly falling back on is "but I do this in my own games and it was awesome". That doesn't prove anything and it totally doesn't prove that a better experience couldn't be had via a different method.

But this does: I've run and played without rulings--it was worse! And precisely because of all the moments that only occur when you have a rules-heavy system: namely trying to find game information inside paragraphs of supplementary information.

Heck "I DM this way and I had fun" doesn't even prove that other people enjoyed Zak's DMing because Zak only has the experience of DMing the game and not the experience of playing the game.

But this does:
1. Ask my players. Or, hell, just follow them on twitter after or before game day when they talk about the fun they're having. Their links are all down the right side of my blog, search those names + "D&D" and there you go

If you do not accept this as evidence, say what you would accept. Or stop talking about it.

2. I have never played GMed by me, but I play in several rulings-not rules games a week. (proof of that likewise available)

...and since I have already said so here in this thread....

You are either too stupid or lazy to be part of this conversation or you read that and ignored it--so you're too crazy to be part of it.

[PhoneLobster]

The overarching theme of this thread has been...

"Zak S shifts goal posts over 9000 times (per second) until everything he said means nothing then blames everyone else for not understanding the secret soul of his magical words."

Sub theme?

"Zak S can't do forum tags".

[nockermensch]

NOCKERMENSCH

I don't think this will actually solve the shitstorm here, but deaddmwalking said something that may be lost among the, uh... whatever is this you guys have been doing for the last 15 pages:

DM advice != Designer advice. The Den tends to worry more about what's actually Designer advice. "Do whatever seems fair and reasonable, and then stick with it" is passable DM advice, because the scope RPGs try to wrestle with is impossibly large and so there will always be parts that the rules don't cover. It's however bad, or at least very incomplete, advice for the designer.

You failed to note Page 11, my second comment, Item #1.

And if you go "why" then you failed to note the comment above near the word "cost"

DUDE,

This thread is like a train-wreck, but for a train whose cargo consists of nothing but train model kits, and the models are also of train-wrecks. If you hadn't SCREAMED MY NAME, I'd probably just skim this entire page with a vague feeling of unease and then leave Internet for a while. I'm actually missing discussions about how to fix Fighters.

[Zak S]

NOCKERMENSCH

I don't think this will actually solve the shitstorm here, but deaddmwalking said something that may be lost among the, uh... whatever is this you guys have been doing for the last 15 pages:

DM advice != Designer advice. The Den tends to worry more about what's actually Designer advice. "Do whatever seems fair and reasonable, and then stick with it" is passable DM advice, because the scope RPGs try to wrestle with is impossibly large and so there will always be parts that the rules don't cover. It's however bad, or at least very incomplete, advice for the designer.

You failed to note Page 11, my second comment, Item #1.

And if you go "why" then you failed to note the comment above near the word "cost"

DUDE,

This thread is like a train-wreck, but for a train whose cargo consists of nothing but train model kits, and the models are also of train-wrecks. If you hadn't SCREAMED MY NAME, I'd probably just skim this entire page with a vague feeling of unease and then leave Internet for a while. I'm actually missing discussions about how to fix Fighters.

If you don't wanna talk about your claims, do not make them.

You said something, it's wrong, you got called on it.

You could avoid that by not saying it in the first place. We could call that Dish It Take It Misericordiam .

Happy Thanksgiving!

[shadzar]

(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.

i am a person. fuck those people who make that claim because i don't play in groups that think that way. if i want to listen to a bunch of lawyers bitch over fiddly bits, i will watch CNN. therefore this idea that "more detailed rules work for all groups" is false.

[Kaelik]

If you don't wanna talk about your claims, do not make them.

You said something, it's wrong, you got called on it.

Nothing that you quoted in any way demonstrates that he failed to notice #1 on page 11. He did not say anything about whether discussions should or should not be had for any kind of game.

At least if you are going to be a psychopath, try to at least direct your psychopathy at people who disagree with you.

[Cyberzombie]

Having a rule doesn't require that it be used.

Yeah, you'd think that were true, but MGuy said earlier in this thread that he'd accuse the DM of outright cheating if he didn't use all the rules. Some players are rules nazis. I've also found DMs with a similar attitude and it really brings down the game as they waste time on small details.

There's nothing that requires that encumbrance rules require weight accounting (but that may be what we're most used to). This is a good example where having a rule (even if it is usually ignored) is helpful. If someone has 2,000 pounds of gear, the DM can say 'hey, according to the rules you're limited to 300 pounds of gear if you want to be able to move'. This helps ensure that people that care about realism (which not everyone does) can enjoy a ruleset that also is enjoyed by people who care less about realism.

I feel like the rule causes more problems because it causes people to ignore common sense. Players stop thinking in terms of a story, and instead treat it like a video game. Like for instance, even if you have 18 strength if you're carrying around a king-sized bed, that's going to impair you, even if the weight of it is no problem. Just simply the size and bulk will get in your way. Now if you follow strict rules you pick up the item, it disappears into your inventory and because it doesn't exceed your weight limit, you're fine, much like in Skyrim.

In reality though, you now can't fit in narrow tunnels and that thing is constantly going to be bumping against walls, which will slow you down.

the 'rulings not rules' crowd likes to claim that speed of play is a major advantage of their preferred play style. To counter, if everyone knows the rules and is able to apply them quickly and easily, using the actual rules is faster than an ad-hoc ruling.

Even if you happen to be good at accounting, doing the accounting will always be slower than not doing the accounting. I don't care how familiar you are with the encumbrance rules, you still have to add a bunch of numbers. I don't really care how familiar you are with making characters in 3E, creating high level NPCs is going to take you a while.

As far as quick to apply rules like modifiers for being underwater, most groups are fine in using the actual rule if someone knows what that rule is. It's only when nobody remembers it that a ruling is made.

Folks like Zak S are not even in the 'rulings not rules' crowd.

I will take your word for what Zak S stands for because his posts are eye cancer and I can't read more than a few lines of them.

As a player, when a DM is called on to make a ruling, it usually differs from the ruling I would make under similar circumstances. This is possible that my expectations change when I wear the player's cap (bias), or it may be based on difference perceptions of 'reasonable' expectations - but as a player, I often find rulings jarring.

And that opinion is what puts you in the rules-heavy crowd. Everyone has their preference, and it's fine to think that way, but different people have different priorities.

For me, nothing annoys me more than tedium. Having to consult the rulebooks all the time or explain a complicated rule to someone is a waste of time. Having boring grindy combats is a waste of time. I don't have a hell of a lot of time to game each week, and I want those hours to involve us getting shit done. I don't care if it's by the book, but it better be moving fast.

I recall a moment in a 4E game where the party was down to 1 or 2 monsters, and had basically won the encounter and I asked the DM if we could just speed things up and declare the monsters dead instead of waste time with pointless grinding. Unfortunately the DM wanted to play completely by the book and had us slog through the rest of the combat. That's just one instance where the DM should be making rulings instead of mindlessly following rules.

[virgil]

Easiest rule to point out as bad is the Barbarian Class. Slaughtermaster (+1 damage) is objectively worse than +1 to-hit. Hearty motherfucker (+2 vs toxins, poisons) is objectively worse than +1 all saves. Combined with the obvious flaws in random stats and hit points, you can end up with two players being barbarians and literally end up with one being better in every way, for literal weeks of gameplay and a plurality of levels, independent of their actual gaming ability.

The abilities are cool, evocative, and what you've written can easily work as fodder for incorporation elsewhere. But purely as written in a campaign, randomly generated character abilities like this are not as good as actually having some consistency in your decisions.

[Omegonthesane]

the 'rulings not rules' crowd likes to claim that speed of play is a major advantage of their preferred play style. To counter, if everyone knows the rules and is able to apply them quickly and easily, using the actual rules is faster than an ad-hoc ruling.

Even if you happen to be good at accounting, doing the accounting will always be slower than not doing the accounting. I don't care how familiar you are with the encumbrance rules, you still have to add a bunch of numbers. I don't really care how familiar you are with making characters in 3E, creating high level NPCs is going to take you a while.

That's a problem with the amount of accounting, not the requirement to commit accounting at all. A rule which required less accounting would be better in that respect (and worse in others, but game speed trumps granularity for a fair number of people), and potentially faster and less argument-inducing than asking the GM every time "Mummy can I carry this bed?" "Mummy can I carry this entire centaur corpse?"

I recall a moment in a 4E game where the party was down to 1 or 2 monsters, and had basically won the encounter and I asked the DM if we could just speed things up and declare the monsters dead instead of waste time with pointless grinding. Unfortunately the DM wanted to play completely by the book and had us slog through the rest of the combat. That's just one instance where the DM should be making rulings instead of mindlessly following rules.

Theoretically, a plot-significant thing could have happened 1 turn after you were so certain that turned assured victory into shock and retreat. It didn't, but the surprise would be ruined if you knew the DM only continued a victorious combat if he was up to something.

[OgreBattle]

As for the published game: it is my experience that any game designer's rule of cool is going to be wrong for my group. Not because my group is so special, but because every group needs its own subtle balance. So, for my personal preference, I prefer a game that ships ready-to-hack (an achievable goal) over one which attempts to ship ready-to-play-as-written (a probably unachievable goal, for me,and one which ends up adding time-wasting clutter I have to chop out).

So I want that game--the ready to hack, flexible one.

If you want the laser-focused one with lots of rules, by all means buy it.

The main edition you play is 3.5, right? In this interview you say... https://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.asp ... 100311back

Zak: We use a heavily houseruled hybrid of AD&D and 3.5 because me and Satine, respectively, were most familiar with those rules when the game started. To be honest, I've never met a gaming system I didn't like and I've never met a gaming system I didn't house-rule all over. Gamer culture is like custom-car culture--Hell's Angels love Harleys but it's actually against the rules to be seen in Hell's Angels colors riding an unmodified Harley.

The way I see it, a game designer's job is to provide veteran players with inspiration and provide new players with training wheels. Precise system only matters if you're not playing with friends who trust each other. If you're 14 and argue a lot or if you're playing a tournament, you need clear balanced rules, if you trust your DM and the DM trusts the players and you all just want to have fun, then you could play the clunkiest system in the world and still have a blast.

Now, in my opinion D&D3.5 leans towards "laser focused with lots of rules", but I'd like to know your opinion on it.
Is a 'laser focused game with lots of rules' more difficult to hack than a rules lite one?

Do you think the goal of a 'perfect' rules set that a new DM can get into to run a game for 14 year olds qualifies as providing 'training wheels'?
Can a 'laser focused rules heavy game' provide inspiration to veteran players as much as a rules lite one?



and Happy Thanksgiving y'all !

[Fuchs]

That's a problem with the amount of accounting, not the requirement to commit accounting at all. A rule which required less accounting would be better in that respect (and worse in others, but game speed trumps granularity for a fair number of people), and potentially faster and less argument-inducing than asking the GM every time "Mummy can I carry this bed?" "Mummy can I carry this entire centaur corpse?"

Not really. Instead you ask "GM, how much does the bed weight?" "GM, how heavy is the centaur corpse?" and then you add the time spent for accounting.

Theoretically, a plot-significant thing could have happened 1 turn after you were so certain that turned assured victory into shock and retreat. It didn't, but the surprise would be ruined if you knew the DM only continued a victorious combat if he was up to something.

That surprise is not worth the tedium of all those combats you don't get to skip.

[Fuchs]

Easiest rule to point out as bad is the Barbarian Class. Slaughtermaster (+1 damage) is objectively worse than +1 to-hit. Hearty motherfucker (+2 vs toxins, poisons) is objectively worse than +1 all saves. Combined with the obvious flaws in random stats and hit points, you can end up with two players being barbarians and literally end up with one being better in every way, for literal weeks of gameplay and a plurality of levels, independent of their actual gaming ability.

The abilities are cool, evocative, and what you've written can easily work as fodder for incorporation elsewhere. But purely as written in a campaign, randomly generated character abilities like this are not as good as actually having some consistency in your decisions.

Though to be fair those examples are not worse rules than the official 3.X rules. Those have trap options aplenty, and also can easily result in one barbarian being better in all aspects than the other.