Why do people fetishize Magic Tea Party

[deaddmwalking]

(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.

Nobody has made this claim. You're tilting at windmills. Or a 'straight up Strawman'.

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

This is really annoying. If you feel something has been overlooked, you could, you know, post it. Or quote yourself if you feel generous. But once again, I will point out what that I am familiar with what you're saying. Once again, you're guilty of a false equivalency. Let me explain after the next quote.

(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.

There are two pizzas. Nobody has to pick toppings off of a pizza. In fact, there are thousands of pizzas, and everyone can get the toppings (rules) that they want. As has been said multiple times (and I'm not going to start referring you to the posts instead of continuing to say it), whether you're making a rules-lite or rules-heavy pizza (very few toppings or very many toppings), you always have to include enough of everything to actually have a pizza when all is done. The contention remains every game should have at least the minimum required number of rules to function.

For the last 15 of the 18 pages, you've been a whiny git who keeps claiming 'they should make a pizza for me that doesn't have any crust!'. If I give you a pile of toppings and a can of tomato sauce, that isn't a pizza.

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!).

Since you have a tendency to fail to respond to everything people say, I'll retread what I said above. In so far as right-hand-scissors are 'more useful' than left-hand scissors, they are 'better'. If you could only have one, the world would be better off if you picked the right-hand scissors. But there's no reason you can have only one. If you have right-hand scissors and left-hand scissors, either way, if you sell scissors, you need to manufacture them so they work in the hands of someone. Since a game functions when it has at least the minimum number of rules required to to function your claim is that manufacturers of left-handed scissors can ship them as two unconnected 'knives' - and the end-user has to figure out a way to connect the two together to start cutting.

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

No, they haven't. I'm tempted to quote you explaining how important reading comprehension is and wailing about how people need to stop failing at reading comprehension.

Having both is good. You're tilting at windmills. There are different audiences for both rules-heavy games and rules-lite games. If you happen to prefer one over the other there's no problem with extolling the superiority of your chosen type. Any sports fan knows that choosing a team involves the abandonment of logic. As a Raiders fan, I can extol the superiority of my team even when every reason I consider them superior is objectively wrong. Humans get to be irrational and respond emotionally. Now, once you accept that having both is good, please agree that each should include at least the minimum number of rules to function.

The original contention is that game designers should not fail to include rules necessary to the functioning of their game because the end user can 'figure out something'.

(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.

And that bothers you? You're demanding an apology from the internet for being mean to you? You may want to reconsider your priorities in life. But since you brought it up, nobody is saying that. You're tilting at windmills. This is where I'm obliged to ask you to put in quotes of people saying that. Then, I'm going to demand that you ask clarifying questions since you clearly misunderstood what they were saying. Oh wait, I'm not going to do that - that would make me an ass.

Since you've had difficulty understanding what people have said up to this point, I'll try to summarize it for you. While all people that have ever played in your game or may ever play in your game may be having fun it remains possible that they would have MORE FUN if you did things differently. This does not mean that you would need to run a 'rules heavy' game. But, for example, imagine that future traveller came and offered you every 'ruling not rule' that you ever planned to use. That would be 'the rules' as long as you are 100% consistent. Some people would have MORE FUN with access to that document. Without it, some people would have MORE FUN if they were able to guess with 100% success how you would rule each inquiry for a particular action. This remains hypothetical. Your players may be happier with the system you use - but there remain reasons why you, as the DM, may fail to notice how it could make some players happier to know the 'rulings' in advance. This is true whether the game includes 1 rule (ultra-rules-light) or is extremely rules-heavy.

Your statements appear to make the following claim:
1) I don't learn the rules in advance, so when something comes up I decide how to do it on the fly (rulings not rules)
2) Once I make a ruling, I write it down in a big book of rulings, and whenever it comes up again, I refer to it if necessary because consistency is important to me. Despite my issues with the costs associated with referring to a rule during the game, my rulings are so obsessively cross-referenced and indexed that I never suffer any loss of time referring to them.
3) Oh wait - I never said I have to index them. The fact is, my rulings are always perfect, anyway, so if I forget my rule, it's okay - I just make a new ruling, and since they're always perfect, it happens to be exactly like my first ruling that I never remembered.
4) And you may not like my system, but all my players are as happy as they could POSSIBLY be. My system is the best for all the people that have ever played or will ever play at my table because we're still playing!

I could quote you extensively to explain why you have created this impression, but that's a lot of work, and I don't feel like it. Let me instead say, see Zak S, all posts in this thread.

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.

Again, you fail at reading comprehension. You may be claiming that you're not talking about why rules-lite are superior to rules-heavy games, and that would be true. You're talking about how rules-lite games ARE NOT INFERIOR to rules heavy games. You keep bringing up 'everyone should play what they like' because you seem to feel that other posters (this is people that are not Zak S) are arguing for the superiority of rules-heavy games. This is not the case. It has not been the case. You're tilting at windmills.

There are people that personally prefer rules-heavy games for reasons and consider them superior. You don't think people should do that because everything appeals to SOMEONE. You're steadfastly refusing to accept that human nature DEMANDS that we rate and categorize. The fact that 'Human Centipede' is someone's favorite movie means maybe it should have been made... But that's no reason critics have to rate it highly. They are entitled to believe that it is crap and nobody should like it. But it exists, and if someone likes it, there's nothing to stop them from watching it as often as they like. You may feel personally shit on when someone calls something you like 'crap', but seriously, if you're a grown adult, you should get used to that. Rather than demand that everyone start a more respectful conversation because irrationality is bad, accept that this is normal human communication.

The fact that people tend to consider the things they like superior does not make it less of a personal opinion.

'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.

Why? Why would you like me to provide the names of any games that don't include rules that are required to play? This is a hypothetical discussion of rules design. If such a game exists, it would be better if it didn't have that problem, right. Are we all agreed on that? Good, then here is an example of a game that fails - 4th edition D&D skill challenges. I understand that it isn't a 'retro-clone', but I never said anything about retro-clones, and I don't know why you're bringing them up. It's like you're a crazy person having a conversation with yourself and then DEMANDING that other people defend the things that voices in your head told you.

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

No. They're not. I can understand that having them is useful because it will come up. The 3.x solution was that fireballs don't make rooms full of gunpowder detonate. You couldn't catch something on fire with a fireball. I would suggest that games you personally design at least address the subject about the effects of magic beyond spell durations, but that's up to you. If you choose not to, it is possible I can point out rancor caused at the gaming table because some people think it should work one way and other people think it should work another. Personally, I think having the rules is better, for reasons, but there are totally games where it shouldn't matter. Not every game tries to include a 'physics simulator' like D&D does. If a game is more 'narrative', having consistent effects doesn't even matter at all... If you spend 'story points' to make the gunpowder explode (whether you ignite with a fireball or a match) it doesn't matter if it is not defined in the rules - because sometimes it will happen and sometimes it won't and it has nothing to do with fireballs and everything to do with who's 'controlling the scene' or something. Now, since you're a big one on insisting that everyone understand you before they start criticizing, please ask me clarifying questions before you respond. I'd hate for you to respond to something you think I meant (even though you derive it from words I actually said), and so if you disagree with anything here I insist you ask first so I can ensure you understand fully before responding. That wouldn't stifle discussion in any way, would it?

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.

So, are you saying that if we, as human beings, all had perfect recall and were able to read a book of RPG rules in the time it took to use the restroom so we all knew every rule and could apply it immediately (assuming, for the moment, that no rule was fiddly like 'encumbrance') that there would be no benefit to the 'rulings not rules' mantra?

Because, seriously, if your argument comes down to time spent, you're not doing a very good job of defending your preferred play style. I think you were better off when pointing out that a 'ruling' could more easily conform to the expectations of the table (custom fit, as it were).

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.

I hope you understand why I've ignored your false equivalence to this point. I've explained in detail above why nobody has to pick off toppings they don't like, or use a scissor made for someone else. There can be different types of games - there can even be 'game design kits' if that's what you want. But I don't think you should release a 'game design kit' as a 'stand alone game'.

Imagine, for a moment, that I'm about to purchase a car. In my hypothetical example, I am planning on replacing the engine for the car I'm about to purchase. The fact that I, as a consumer, exist, does not mean that car manufacturers should not be expected to provide engines for their cars. If they were going to leave out such an essential feature, the buyer should be told in advance. Then, in my case, I can either buy a car with an unnecessary engine and swap it out as I planned, or I can find one that is clearly advertised to not include an engine and save the work of removing it. But if I buy a car and open the hood to find out there is no engine when I expected it, on the one hand, I'm gratified to have less work to do but I'm surprised. My neighbor, expecting to get to work tomorrow, is going to be horrified if that happens to him. My unique, special needs (or lack of them) does not magically make car manufactures less of a failure for including essential features. You have consistently failed to address THIS each and every time this, or a similar point has been brought up. And since it is not about rules-lite versus rules-heavy the same is true whether I buy a car with no engine or a skate-board with no wheels. Putting on new wheels to a skateboard is EASIER than putting an engine in a car, but the time to find out you don't have one or the other isn't after you've started going.

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.

This seems like a legitimate complaint about formatting. Having a rule and choosing not to use it (in the event you, personally have a better option, including making up something on the fly) does not mean that the publisher doesn't have an obligation to create a rule that is expected to be necessary for the functioning of the game. You seriously appear to be saying 'the quality of any game is immaterial. Even a game that does not work is okay, because I CAN FIX IT. I get that. Lots of people can 'fix' broken games. But nobody should be OBLIGATED to fix it so they can play - especially since not everyone can. If you buy a game, it should work. That's my contention.

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.

And in hypothetical examples, the actual existing rules we can look at don't really have a lot of bearing. And again, you're conflating some perceived issue of 'rules-heavy versus rules-light' when it is instead 'rules necessary for the functioning of the game'.

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.

I have two objections here. First of all, you're not very familiar with screen readers combined with searchable PDF documents. I used to read for a couple of blind friends, and even in 2005 the technology was pretty impressive. I can only imagine how far it has come in the intervening years. But regardless of the actual status of the technology, there is an advantage in trying to determine 'what perfect would be'. If we know that instantly searchable, trivial to reference rules are 'perfect' and to be desired, we could aim for that in the next generation of game design. Remember, we're discussing what theoretical game designers SHOULD DO, not necessarily what has been done before.

The possibility of a product (at least in book form) maximally useful to both audiences is difficult to imagine since ... blah blah blah

Sounds like a personal problem.

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

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

I'm not 100% certain that this is correct, because you seem to keep losing sight of 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.

There are multiple metrics by which a rule can be judged 'good' or 'bad'. Some of them even are subject to personal preference. On an objective basis, a rule can be evaluated on whether it succeeds against its design goal. If I have a goal that character death is meaningful and only happens when it benefits the story, but characters NEVER survive a single fight, the game might be MORE FUN than I intended (in a conga-line of death sort of way) but I could still say the rule is bad. Obviously, this rule is bad in the context of the game design - it could be a good rule in a slapstick comedy-death kind of way (like a Road Runner cartoon).

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.

Or the game might be worse because see 'bad rule' up above. Having the rules necessary to function does not mean that tables can't continue to make rulings (and even if the game is rules-lite and everything is resolved by a single rule) there's nothing to stop them from adding additional situational-specific rules that they like. The underlying game needs to at least FUNCTION with the rules it includes.

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

I take it you object to my first sentence? Okay, you're right. Game Designers WILL stop people from replacing their rules with houserules (and that's a good thing). Happy now?

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.

No. It wasn't countered. You're as guilty now as you were then. And the thing is, you were reasonable for the first few pages. You've gone off the rails, you're tilting at windmills, and you're arguing with phantoms that exist only in your own mind. Combined with your repeated demands for apologies, you have been able to turn a reasonable position (the world is better if there are flavors that appeal to different people) and manage to make it and yourself look like a crazy person.

As for hypocrisy:

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

Largely, I think you are being hypocritical about demanding that everyone clearly explain their target audience while you fail to do so (and have failed to do so) several times. While I think your insistence that target audience is defined is asinine, you have not yet failed to retract it.

I think you are being hypocritical when you insist people fail to respond to your points, but you consistently fail to respond to theirs. I think that when you respond with 'quote where I didn't respond' is particularly tiresome because you could pretty much put any quote in and insist it was 'countered' when your statement refuted or responded to the claim in no way, shape, or form.

I think you are being an ass when you continually point people toward other sources of information (see post earlier or see 'all my recorded games, ever') when you could, instead, provide the information you think is important. Since you have spoken about how insults or hyperbole make the discussion more confusing, the fact that you're deliberately making the conversation more confusing is, itself, hypocritical (but mostly I think it makes you look like an ass).

A piece of paper only produces a drawing if you add paper and your own effort. By your logic people shouldn't sell pencils.

No. If I sell you a drawing, I shouldn't give you a piece of paper and a pencil. If I sell you a game, which includes added elements like friends and imagination, the fact that you have to do some work isn't a problem - but since I'm selling you 'rules', I should sell you enough rules 'to play'.

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

Yes. If something did not claim to be playable without modification, I wouldn't object. That would clearly disclose the flaw to someone who looks at a game and buys a game thinking it is something playable.

In fact, I bought just such a toolset with 'Never Winter Nights'. It was clearly disclosed that it wasn't a game - it was a scenario creator. You couldn't play without the actual game.

But if I had bought the scenario builder and was under the impression that it was, actually, the game - I'd have been justifiably upset.

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.

This statement marks you as insane. I included the word 'irrational'. You excluded it. You keep suggesting that we need to have a perfectly rational conversation at all times, as if we're not human beings. You've claimed that the use of hyperbole only serves to create confusion (pro tip: it does more than that) and it shouldn't be used in these types of discussions. Fuck you.

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

Okay. I've quoted you saying this. While I do claim not to be insane, I fail to see how quoting you above responds to that accusation in any meaningful way. It seems like a pointless hurdle. Or do you mean something else? Something where you told someone to stop being irrational?

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

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

I don't understand why you'd think so. Here you are, again, making unreasonable demands Why MUST I do anything? Why AREN'T you asking clarifying questions? Clearly, you don't understand what I'm saying. It doesn't help that your syntax is probably broken. Maybe you could start with 'what is my previous statement' that you think you're responding to. I've been accused (accurately, I might add) of being verbose and responding to you in far more detail than you deserve. I've made a lot of previous statements. None of them include conflicts over what TV show to watch.

[Chamomile]

[Mistborn]

deadDMwalking what the fuck, that last post was 7-8 screens on my laptop. Now it was a very eloquent and well reasoned post, but still 8 screens what the fuck. Just because the opposition party is Gish Galloping off into the sunset doesn't mean you need to saddle up and follow him.

[Username17]

Yeah, basically Zak S and Fushs both are arguing by throwing massive scattershot concepts that don't make any sense, aren't well reasoned, and don't need to be even acknowledged. Keep it punchy. Go for the throat.

So on the Rules vs. Rulings issue, the primary advantage of rules is that they can be cross examined and edited before they have been dropped into play. Zak's contention is essentially that he is personally too awesome to need an editor, which is patently absurd, but demonstrating that it's not true would require merely finding one thing he pulled out of his ass that could have been improved with more work.

Now fortunately, we don't have to sift through hours of podcasts to find one, because he posted a 30 second train wreck of a social currency subsystem. And while he can claim it isn't fair to talk about whole subsystems in this manner, we can focus in on a singular ruling in it: the game theory exemption. He dropped in the idea that people should not give social bonuses if in their analysis giving or not giving a favor would be unlikely to affect future behavior. That's actually extremely representative of a bad ruling, because it sounds superficially reasonable in the 30 seconds between when you think of it and when you unleash it on your players.

But of course, there are holes in that the size of a truck. Game theory optimization based on forward looking does a very bad job of modeling real human behavior. Especially in a fantasy world where you genuinely do have actors who are known to be consistent altruists or the opposite (Paladins and Blackguards, for example). Free soup won't change the odds of a Paladin saving your children or a Balor eating them, but it still seems like farmers should be more likely to give free soup to one than the other.

Which of course, takes only a couple minutes to spot. And fixes are numerous. But that's still out of the time frame required for simple "rulings." Which is why actual rules are better.

-Username17

[MGuy]

So as proof that certain people aren't reading other people's posts here is what CZ thinks I said:

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.

This is everything that CZ could possibly be talking about:

Then it just means you're too lazy. That's all. You ditching the rules is basically being a cheat (hoping your players don't notice) or you straight up told your players that you're effectively just substituting rules (that you could look up) with ass pulled numbers. You haven't even made a claim that you just made up a better rule just that you prefer to ass pull numbers.

Maybe we should start a new thread about fetishism towards being a rules nazi. I realize that D&D is SERIOUS BUSINESS! but come on man. Nobody at the table even cared enough about the rule to learn it, so why does it even matter if you get it right?

Obviously no PC based any tactics around that rule because the entire table doesn't know what it is. At that point, it is superior to just make something up and get the game moving. The ruling that takes 2 seconds is superior to the ruling that takes 10 minutes, because that's 10 more minutes of fun gaming as opposed to 10 minutes of your life wasted on looking up something nobody gave a shit about in the first place.

If the majority of gamers didn't even bother to learn a rule, that should make the designers question if it's worth putting in the rulebook at all. There's a point where a game becomes needlessly complex.

If you want have a conversation(s) about how some rules are bad and should be changed there are quite a few threads on this very forum about that. If your issue is with following rules at all then you should just tell people why you have an MTP fetish right here because I believe that's what this thread started over. Considering that most people on these boards talk about making better rules I don't see why you would need to make a thread about rules nazis which as far as I can tell is one of the many derogatory terms that refer to people who like to follow the rules of the game they elected to play.

Notice that my point was not about calling cheaters out on cheating and that CZ decided to completely ignore the point I was making in order to express the desire to talk about rules nazis. My point was that Fuchs at the time wasn't talking about making better, easier, or faster rules but about substituting rules for no reason other than laziness.

[Cyberzombie]

Notice that my point was not about calling cheaters out on cheating and that CZ decided to completely ignore the point I was making in order to express the desire to talk about rules nazis. My point was that Fuchs at the time wasn't talking about making better, easier, or faster rules but about substituting rules for no reason other than laziness.

Not spending the time to crack open books and look crap up is always faster. So doing it Fuchs way will save your group time.

And no, it's not cheating for the DM to do that. It's actually good DMing to keep the game moving and not waste time on trivial details. And if nobody at your table even knows what the original rule was, then the details are trivial.

[MGuy]

Notice that my point was not about calling cheaters out on cheating and that CZ decided to completely ignore the point I was making in order to express the desire to talk about rules nazis. My point was that Fuchs at the time wasn't talking about making better, easier, or faster rules but about substituting rules for no reason other than laziness.

Not spending the time to crack open books and look crap up is always faster. So doing it Fuchs way will save your group time.

And no, it's not cheating for the DM to do that. It's actually good DMing to keep the game moving and not waste time on trivial details. And if nobody at your table even knows what the original rule was, then the details are trivial.

Just knowing the rule is faster than having to make one up. A good GM will simply know the rules and will keep the game moving. If everyone at the table knows what the rule is then moving on will be trivial.

[PhoneLobster]

Not spending the time to crack open books and look crap up is always faster. So doing it Fuchs way will save your group time.

No, no it is not.

It CAN be faster. But it CAN be slower. See the "then just ask me 'clarifying questions' FOREVER!" demands by certain parties.

Take half a second to realize that a lot of poorly thought out rulings could in fact take longer to think about, make up, explain and resolve than it takes to look up and use SOME rules, especially since the rules have the advantage that multiple players at the table may already know them while the alternative pull it out the GMs ass scenario means that actually even the GM doesn't have any actual chance of already knowing the rule.

But aside from that this whole "Mguy/People have called not using rules cheating!" thing is stupid.

Because you know what. We HAD that fucking argument. As part of an spiraling pit of insanity on player mortality we DID have one or two extremists state that ANY defiance of or change of existing rules (in that case to prevent a TPK the entire group sees as undesirable) was some sort of cheating betrayal.

And I was on the other side of that argument but I'm on this side of THIS argument because THAT argument was insane "ANY CHANGE OF RULES IS BAD!" THIS argument is even MORE insane people saying "ANY CRITICISM OF ANY LACK OF RULES IS BAD!". And saying it in really insane ways that require them to claim they make perfect rulings out their ass all the damn time.

The critics on this thread are not the ones outlining an insane absolutist position. The pro "crypto-MTP-anti-precedent-spontaneouso" rulings crowd are the ones talking the bat shit crazy.

It's a pity, I like adaptive GMing, I openly promote the idea of using MTP and Mother May I elements to cover SOME sorts of gaps in RPG rules systems, I've been happy enough in the past to defend the idea that SOMETIMES rules just go so wrong that you need to make a spontaneous ruling to contradict them and that CAN be good.

But in the context of what the self appointed defenders of MTP are saying in this thread and the utterly insane shit they are stepping in while fumbling to say it in such a stupid way... I'm not on board. Not even close to it.

[Cyberzombie]

Just knowing the rule is faster than having to make one up. A good GM will simply know the rules and will keep the game moving. If everyone at the table knows what the rule is then moving on will be trivial.

In the real world, people forget rules that rarely come up. Most gamers have lives beyond D&D and have better things to do than memorize the rulebooks cover to cover.

[Fuchs]

I maintain that any rule no one at the table knows and no one cares enough to know is not important enough for the game to spend time learning, and therefore is better replaced with a ruling. Call it lazyness, or whatever - but there's no need to make people learn rules that rarely to never come up in their games.

[MGuy]

Just knowing the rule is faster than having to make one up. A good GM will simply know the rules and will keep the game moving. If everyone at the table knows what the rule is then moving on will be trivial.

In the real world, people forget rules that rarely come up. Most gamers have lives beyond D&D and have better things to do than memorize the rulebooks cover to cover.

Shifting goalposts? That sure hasn't happened a lot in this thread. If you're going to argue about what's fastest than simply knowing the rule is the fastest. If you're going to argue that there are circumstances that might arise that makes ass pulling a rule better than taking some time to look it up I am EQUALLY capable of pinpointing any number of circumstances where it would not be. At the very least Fuchs is admitting to it being a lazy cop out which is precisely what I was pointing out in the first fucking place.

[Cyberzombie]

Shifting goalposts? That sure hasn't happened a lot in this thread. If you're going to argue about what's fastest than simply knowing the rule is the fastest.

Knowing every rule isn't realistic.

You're the one shifting the goalposts because the initial question deals with a rule you can't remember.

[MGuy]

Shifting goalposts? That sure hasn't happened a lot in this thread. If you're going to argue about what's fastest than simply knowing the rule is the fastest.

Knowing every rule isn't realistic.

You're the one shifting the goalposts because the initial question deals with a rule you can't remember.

I argued originally that Fuch's response to K did not contradict what he said. You've since shifted the goal post to what was faster. Knowing the rule is faster, hands down. Now you want to talk about what's realistic and realistically most people won't mind if you spend a minute or two looking up some small rule.

[K]

Learning rules is easy. You use them a few times and then you've learned them.

Looking up rules is easy and fast. There are indexes and tables and shit.

Why are people pretending that this is some massive chore? Why are they claiming that it takes ten minutes to figure out how a rule works? Do they have dyslexia? Do they have to translate the English words into Russian and they only have half of a dictionary? Are they drunk and high?

I'll understand if they are junkie Russian dyslexics with only English rulebooks. Those guys get a pass.

[Username17]

Ancient History and I have been doing some OSSRs, and there are some old systems that have genuinely terrible methods of linking information. In 1st edition WFRP, a thing on the drawbacks of necromancy might tell you that there are things you can do about it and then say "See Preparations" with no indication of what page, chapter, or book that section you're supposed to look up might be. Exalted is even worse, telling you to look at the core book for all the rules that aren't superseded in the expansion book - with no list anywhere of where in either book the relevant rules are, nor the slightest hint of what rules are or are not in either book.

So I could see someone who got trained on these old and poorly edited games deciding that rules were simply too hard to look up. But there's fundamentally no reason for that to be the case. Modern books have indices, and should have rules in some sort of layout that makes some sense to someone. Hell, really modern books are often in electronically searchable formats.

The days of being asked to go through literally 600 pages of documents to find a rule that might not exist and is likely hidden in a block of unrelated flavor text if it is are over. There's no excuse for a game system to look like that in the modern era, and acting like game systems necessarily are like that is simply disingenuous. Exalted was backwards and shitty in 2001. People complained of poor organization and layout for WFRP in 1986. It's two thousand and fucking thirteen. Arguing that information is necessarily hard to find in a game book is ridiculous.

-Username17

[shadzar]

I maintain that any rule no one at the table knows and no one cares enough to know is not important enough for the game to spend time learning, and therefore is better replaced with a ruling. Call it lazyness, or whatever - but there's no need to make people learn rules that rarely to never come up in their games.

or worse, they disagree with the rule. remember you buy a system but are in no way forced to use every part or play by RAW. again a failing of the "rules over rulings" crowd is they think they can force everyone to like every rule some publisher makes. if that were the case, you would never need a DM in the first place to make the game work for the group. that is the DMs main job, to tailor the game for the players. to convert what someone at WotC wrote into something the people in France will enjoy playing.

if you have a system so interlocked like 3.x or 4/E that you cannot do without parts because people dont want to play them, then none of your rules were good to begin with. decide you don't want to use feats, you are pretty much screwed for both games since it assume they are always being used. the DM pretty much has to rewrite the whole system to compensate for the removal of feats. this will be rulings made during play when they come up to fix things, and will likely change past rulings as ne things come up until the problem is fixed starting with just a band-aid, then moving into full surgery of the system.

Looking up rules is easy and fast.

you have never played 1st edition have you? how do you grapple a troll in 3rd edition?

[deaddmwalking]

I maintain that any rule no one at the table knows and no one cares enough to know is not important enough for the game to spend time learning, and therefore is better replaced with a ruling. Call it lazyness, or whatever - but there's no need to make people learn rules that rarely to never come up in their games.

or worse, they disagree with the rule. remember you buy a system but are in no way forced to use every part or play by RAW. again a failing of the "rules over rulings" crowd is they think they can force everyone to like every rule some publisher makes.

Nobody is arguing that. Now you're tilting at windmills. PhoneLobster just went on record as saying 'sometimes you have to make a ruling to counter a shitty rule'.

The last two pages, the 'rulings not rules' crowd has tried to say 'rulings are better because they're faster. That is a pretty weak argument (as I pointed out proactively in my massive post at the top of the page). In some cases, it might be faster, but in all cases, it is slower than knowing the actual rule. While knowing all rules might be impossible (and this depends heavily on the complexity of the rule set), it is possible to know where it exists or to find it just as quickly as making a ruling (again - this is a hypothetical ruleset, so we can organize it however makes it easier for the user).

if you have a system so interlocked like 3.x or 4/E that you cannot do without parts because people dont want to play them, then none of your rules were good to begin with. decide you don't want to use feats, you are pretty much screwed for both games since it assume they are always being used. the DM pretty much has to rewrite the whole system to compensate for the removal of feats. this will be rulings made during play when they come up to fix things, and will likely change past rulings as ne things come up until the problem is fixed starting with just a band-aid, then moving into full surgery of the system.

Not every part of 3.x or 4th edition is entirely dependent on the others. But if the system you're using isn't a good fit, you should consider using a different system. See Zak S. 'two pizzas' or 'left-handed scissors aren't bad'. There are plenty of game systems - not all of which include character differentiation in the form of 'Feats' - but a lot of games do - even before 3.x they existed.

Looking up rules is easy and fast.

you have never played 1st edition have you? how do you grapple a troll in 3rd edition?

There are admittedly instances where finding rules is difficult (see Frank's most recent post). That is not a defense of rulings not rules - that's an indictment against poor formatting and organization. The reason it's not a defense is because if you fix the problem (make the books easy to reference) then the purported reason for 'rulings not rules' evaporates. If all they have to justify their existence is 'speed of play', it must be accepted that if you can 'increase speed of play EVEN MORE' by using the rules, that using the rules, in all situations, would actually be better.

But there are better arguments for rulings not rules in some situations that still actually make sense. The 'it's faster' might work in some situations, but as soon as it's not faster, it doesn't work at all.

[Fuchs]

Learning rules is easy. You use them a few times and then you've learned them.

Looking up rules is easy and fast. There are indexes and tables and shit.

Why are people pretending that this is some massive chore? Why are they claiming that it takes ten minutes to figure out how a rule works? Do they have dyslexia? Do they have to translate the English words into Russian and they only have half of a dictionary? Are they drunk and high?

The crux lies in "you use them a few times". For a number of rules, that simply doesn't happen. There are rules I once knew, and forgot because they never came up in years.

No one claims it's taking 10 minutes to look up a rule. But it's taking longer than simply picking a DC and making people roll a die. And sometimes it breaks the flow of the game.

I cold turn it around and ask why are people making it out as if it's so terribly important that every minor exotic rule is always handled exactly the same? Consistency is not the be all, end all of a game.

Diminishing returns. At some point, which varies for most groups, it's simply not worth the time, no matter how short, not the effort, no matter how little, to look up or learn a rule.

And we haven't even touched the case when the rule you'd be learning or looking up is stupid.

[Fuchs]

If all they have to justify their existence is 'speed of play', it must be accepted that if you can 'increase speed of play EVEN MORE' by using the rules, that using the rules, in all situations, would actually be better.

But I cannot know all the rules. Others may be able to, I might have been able to 20 years ago, with less demands on my time, but these days? Not possible. If I don't use a rule regularily, I forget it - and there are a number of such rules.

[Omegonthesane]

Learning rules is easy. You use them a few times and then you've learned them.

Looking up rules is easy and fast. There are indexes and tables and shit.

Why are people pretending that this is some massive chore? Why are they claiming that it takes ten minutes to figure out how a rule works? Do they have dyslexia? Do they have to translate the English words into Russian and they only have half of a dictionary? Are they drunk and high?

The crux lies in "you use them a few times". For a number of rules, that simply doesn't happen. There are rules I once knew, and forgot because they never came up in years.

How often does it have to come up, roughly speaking, as far as you are concerned? Once a session? Once a combat? Once every quarter-hour?

As a counter-number, my guess would be that so long as 85% at worst of any given session and 90% of the campaign as a whole uses consistent rules, and the remaining 15% on a bad day and 10% on average doesn't invalidate any of the consistent bits (such as ruling that a dragon's breath instagibs you, bypassing the rule about burning Destiny to not die or the rule about taking a Wound to ignore all hitpoint damage from one strike), I won't even start questioning whether we're still playing a game let alone clamouring for rules as written.

And we haven't even touched the case when the rule you'd be learning or looking up is stupid.

Well, no. Because that isn't a solution you solve by making on the fly rulings. It's one that you solve by thinking about it during a few spare hours between games, picking a houserule, and sticking to it till the campaign is over. Possibly longer, if it survives Denizen scrutiny.

[shadzar]

Yes, and memory atrophy isn't only affected by age, but recall power, which is often affected by stress levels.

after working a busy work on who cares what, someone sitting down to paly just might forget something right on the character sheet exists, let alone some rule is provided in one of the 100 "rule books".

2nd edition was the toolbox, you picked which sets of rules you aplied. you weren't supposed to grab a rule from Sinister Secret of Salt Marsh, and use it in Dragons of Truth, or the reverse. You wanted to play S&P characters in Menzoberranzan, you had to make stuff up. Likewise, you have to make stuff up in 1st, when you try to use NWPs from Unearthed Arcana or DSG/WSG in Castle Amber.

"rules not rulings" gives you Ettercaps that are spider hearders that sell pixie parts to hags in Ravenloft, Kryyn, Toril, Athas, Oerth, etc.... "rules not rulings" makes ALL halflings into kender always and vice versa.

the very reason there exists more than one setting, is because of "rulings not rules". it is also what allows one group to play one style, and another play their own, so you can have compete story driven with fighting only in key points, and a gauntlet style dungeon crawl that is hack'n'slash from beginning to end and the only story is when BBEG starts monoloogging.

so how about that for "two pizzas"? yet people didnt want their own pizza, they usurped D&D pizza and put their weird pineapple, strawberries potatoes, etc on it so others couldn't just have a plain pepperoni, sausage, hamburger, bacon, ham pizza.

"rulings not rules" allows for different playstyles, and "rules not rulings" allows only a finite playstyle.

"rules not rulings" got you The Hobbit. you can read it 1000 times, but but nothing will change, it will be the same railroad the author sent you on.

"rulings not rules" gives you CYOA book, that said you don't ahve to read from cover to cover, but can have different branches, and make your own choice as to how the story will unfold. you are still bound by the limit of the author (scope of the system, DM, and players), but you have a lot more choices which is close to just theater of the mind, where you make everything up as you go which is what a large part of D&D and RPGs are, imagination.

"rules not rulings" works for board games, card games, video games, etc where you have limited design space, and can fit everything in that space. where you have unlimited design space, and plan to write books for 10 years that will surpass 100 products ALL containing their own rules, "rulings not rules" must be used, which is called "your best judgement" to make all these things fit together.

4th edition was the "rules not rulings" edition, and the tighter it gets than that, there will be no game left, just button pushing.

it would be like saying all character can swim so that all characters may participate in areas where there is water is a RULE. what happens when a player doesn't want his character to be able to swim? either he cannot play, because he is trying to violate the RULE, or now the rule ha become a ruling to allow that player to have have his character not swim.

"rulings not rules" will always be how a TTRPG works, because it cannot be held to such a rigid format of thought as a video game, card game, or board game. and then many board games have rulings not rules, because you pick what happens to tax money in monopoly and what happens when you land on FREE PARKING, there are MANY RULINGS that occurred (lets call them houserules) because people wanted somethnig different.

so as long as houseruling is permissible, "rulings not rules" is the way it works. houseruling is in essence a rules violation because you changed something that was published, and houserules change from game to game, making that which was published jsut a ruling from on high, and "on high" can not do a damn thing to fore you to pay their way.

Gary: "If you aren't playing AD&D as it was written then you aren''t playing AD&D." this was the response to a tournament RULING, but people forget that tournaments are held at conventions so that everyone can try to have the SAME experience from their money. the DMs were supposed to be unified in RULINGS to offer this same experience. thus in MTG events when a pre-release occurs and some new card comes out that LOOKS like you can counterspell tapping a land, and the judge makes a ruling on it, all the other judges under him must adhere to that ruling, FOR THAT EVENT, until errata is plaed on the card, to clarify the rule. such as Zac,s houserules become rules situation...but then even rules can be changed as they are only rulings at the time something came up.

anyone trying to make a single set of rules for all occurrences that take everything into account is running a fool's errand since you never know what tomorrow will bring.

Mammals live on land not the ocean, only fish live in the ocean.

years later... um Dolphins, whales, and some other ocean dwelling creatures are mammals, so we retract the previous rule and um....

"rulings not rules" takes into account "shit happens" and lets you deal with it.

is it a rule in EQ that you cannot climb? No, it is just not even open for discussion since the design space didn't have room for it. hell the trees were only cutouts for fucks sake!, there was nothing to climb. you wanted into the elf city, you had to use the ramp or elevator to get away from the orcs. dwarfs hate ogres. that is a rule there... well mostly. if you collect enough orc belts and take them to a dwarf then that changtes and dwarves are now friendly towards orges. you jsut have to survive the city long enouhg to get in and out with enough belts to trade. so not really a rule after all.

RULES are the things you start with as common ground, and them change into rulings later. such as the real world where its rules (laws) are always changing, so too must in in games.

[shadzar]

How often does it have to come up, roughly speaking, as far as you are concerned? Once a session? Once a combat? Once every quarter-hour?

that probably depends on the gorup of players. depending on the rule, some groups may like martial combat that uses lots of grappling and such so they would know the rules, while others very rarely do.

so which rule is correct? the one with grappling or the one without? it really depends on who is in the group playing. do you force those that don't want to grapple, to start grappling and using that rule? do you force them to memorize it even though they don't use it and could use their energy better memorizing another rule?

a big thing about "rules not rulings" is that it expects everoyne to play the same way all the time.

what if we changed to an all evil party? do all the rules hold true them?

Paladins must be lawful-good. that is the rule. why is there ANYONE in the "rules not rulings" camp every saying a paladin should be anything other than LG? because they believe in "rulings" and are lying to themselves and everyone else trying to say "RULES" are better, when they don't even follow the rules. must have been only a RULING, if it was able to be changed from one edition to another huh?

[Fuchs]

How often does it have to come up, roughly speaking, as far as you are concerned? Once a session? Once a combat? Once every quarter-hour?

Once every couple sessions I'd say, at the minimum to not forget it. That would make it about once a month.

[MGuy]

Learning rules is easy. You use them a few times and then you've learned them.

Looking up rules is easy and fast. There are indexes and tables and shit.

Why are people pretending that this is some massive chore? Why are they claiming that it takes ten minutes to figure out how a rule works? Do they have dyslexia? Do they have to translate the English words into Russian and they only have half of a dictionary? Are they drunk and high?

The crux lies in "you use them a few times". For a number of rules, that simply doesn't happen. There are rules I once knew, and forgot because they never came up in years.

No one claims it's taking 10 minutes to look up a rule. But it's taking longer than simply picking a DC and making people roll a die. And sometimes it breaks the flow of the game.

I cold turn it around and ask why are people making it out as if it's so terribly important that every minor exotic rule is always handled exactly the same? Consistency is not the be all, end all of a game.

Diminishing returns. At some point, which varies for most groups, it's simply not worth the time, no matter how short, not the effort, no matter how little, to look up or learn a rule.

And we haven't even touched the case when the rule you'd be learning or looking up is stupid.

Could you give an example of what you're talking about? It seems as though you're retreating further and further in this argument. You're now making your case for some rare circumstance where no one is familiar with the particular rule, the rule takes longer to find than coming up with a non harmful way to house rule it off the cuff, and is so stupid that it would be stupid to actually learn it. So I'm left wondering what kind of situation are you actually defending because at this point the instances your case can even fit into seem so small that it wouldn't even be worth trying to defend.

[Fuchs]

Could you give an example of what you're talking about? It seems as though you're retreating further and further in this argument. You're now making your case for some rare circumstance where no one is familiar with the particular rule, the rule takes longer to find than coming up with a non harmful way to house rule it off the cuff, and is so stupid that it would be stupid to actually learn it. So I'm left wondering what kind of situation are you actually defending because at this point the instances your case can even fit into seem so small that it wouldn't even be worth trying to defend.

First, I did not say "and is so stupid". That is not another cumulative condition, it is a whole new case of situations where rulings beat rules. Second, no matter what some people claim, it's always faster to make up a dc and have someone roll than look something up. Always.

Examples for rules I don't know or forgot, and which I'd make a ruling for (and which no one cares enough about in my campaign to make a fuss about the ruling):

Doused with a flammable liquid and set on fire. Never came up in years. I vaguely remember there's some "on fire" rules somewhere, not sure if it's enviroment or flasks or whatever.

Jumping on or off a horse - probably in the ride or acrobatics or jump description.

Crashing a chandelier on someone.

Improvised weapon damage.

Making/laying traps.

Availability of items in a settlement.

Travel speed overland/over sea.

Encumbrance.