Your Rule Sucks: The Zak S Social Currency Edition

[Zak S]

Mechanically, chess has less potential for abuse than D&D. Of course, chess generally isn't a form of roleplaying.

Can we agree that a defining trait of D&D (if not all RPGs) and some wargames that inspired it is that they (unlike many similar things like a cosmetically reskinned computer RPG) allow for mechanically significant original content? (Like: even in a wargame, you can decide where to put a castle on the table and that's mechanically significant.)

Can we agree that, roughly, the more mechanically significant original content is required, the more the potential for abuse?

Can we agree that what you'd prefer--in places where mechanically significant original content is allowed--is that the game also include default content that will be relatively hard to abuse?

"Charm spell, as we have said many many times, allows a saving throw. It at least allows an opportunity for the character to resist. The overwhelming bonus against a static target number does not allow that. "

52. You've referred to this defense many times as if it mattered and I can't think for the life of me why.

And this is perhaps the heart of your problem. The problem with your static TN rules so far is that they can result in situations where passing the effect is basically automatic. Now maybe the fucking saving throw is a formality in some cases, but at least it gives you a fucking hope.

I understand that and do not understand its relevance: in both the swordfight and the influence rule, there is a great deal of hope--usually far more hope than a save.

Long spoiler short: student can disarm his master by rolling 8 on a d20 - and that's after the master decides to "fight defensively" and not counting any other bonus. So your master swordsman in this example basically has almost no chance of keeping some snot-nosed punk from disarming him,

How is 7 times out of 20 "no chance"? I don't follow.

and on the second round probably getting stabbed because he's now unarmed.

His regular AC doesn't suddenly decrease because he has no sword. I don't follow. He's as likely to be stabbed before disarmament as after, unless you assume he'd otherwise one-shot the student.

you not conceive how many people think it should be more difficult to disarm a master swordsman than a student,

The way I do it: the higher your dex, the harder you are to disarm, the way you want it done: the more experience you have the harder you are to disarm. I see no particular problem with my aesthetic choice.

or how that could be abused?

The only case I can recall of "abuse" is: it might lead to a fight I feel is aesthetically interesting and you don't. If there is some other "abuse" this might be put to that isn't subjective say what that is.

…in your god-king example you completely ignored all the other NPCs in the world who would want that god-king's sword.

In your examples, you've ignored every other NPC in the world too. Did you want to go back and sketch them all out and we'll meet here in a hundred years to see who's done a better job?

I don't understand your point. In my system (go read the first page), when a request comes up the power of the PC's bonus only matters to the degree it exceeds (or if it exceeds) the bonus of the next claimant. So…you just have to know of that person exists or if the god-king has zero other power-hungry acquaintances.

the baseline of these bonuses would only include the differences between bonuses of competing factions and interests.

Without doing that, you're either not making an example that has to do with my rule or you're positing a lonely god-king which only the PCs know or care about.

AGAIN:

If you could, can you narrate (in more plausible detail) 2 situations one with Charm and one with my mechanic that takes into effect all of the considerations actually in the rule that shows how the overall end effect of the PCs being able to take this Very Likely Action after doing a lot of work is more abusable than he PCs being able to just Charm the target with a successful save.

I could, yes. I'm not going to. I've already submitted to quite a number of your requests here, and you've yet to produce anything like a fucking point to compensate.

Listen: I'm not trying to make a point I'm just trying to understand what the nature of your beef is. I can't do that unless you give me a situation that sounds something like the rule I described in action.

Can you please lay out an example using Charm and using the system I wrote?

56. Do you design NPCs knowing that (absent magic) there are things they will never do?

Never is a strong word. In real life, I feel there's very few things people would not do if the circumstances were right, and I try to give my characters the same consideration. Granted, in normal circumstances there are things NPCs would never do...but adventures are not normal circumstances.

Well then you've found an assumption that you make about NPCs that makes you see one flaw in this rule that--if you make my assumption instead, it ceases to be a flaw. My rule does not ignore alignment, etc.

So the flaw you see which depends on this assumption is not a flaw--it's a factor which makes it unsuitable for your game but not mine.

If you had someone that figured out disarming was an exceptionally easy tactic, they could abuse it all the time and combats would either be very short and/or the gamemaster might start having NPCs disarm PCs, in which case you get into a bit of Knights of the Dinner Table-style madness where fights become huge disarm contests.

Jimmy Disarmer needs fairly specific things to work his magic: enemies who use weapons and not magic or natural weapons, have only one useful weapon, he's sure he's ok wasting a non-damaging round disarming, who have low Dex, and who don't use any kind of team tactics or outnumber you so disarming's a wasted round because then guy B just attacks you while guy A picks up his sword, etc.

Not unheard of, by any means, but not a situation so common as to be more abusable than a bajillion other things in D&D.

And that's leaving out a big boss fight going south quickly when you disarm Orcus of his wand or something in round 1.

Again: I don't see how that's "going south". It's a clever tactic but carries the price of sacrificing a chance to hurt the boss. And the boss can, presumably, kill any PC if they focus on for 1-4 rounds, so each round counts. Plus that means you just got in melee with the boss and did no damage so you're about to get pulped.

This is a taste thing.

Okay, so you think you have the inalienable right to call someone an idiot or a liar based on nothing but your understanding, but you insist everyone else has to beg you for evidence before calling you on it? What the hell, man?

If you could think of any plausible non-insulting interpretation of Kaelik's comment then you'd have a point. But you can't--it was insulting and Kaelik's admitted it. As was your "shit fit". So you have no leg to stand on there.

I think refusing to realize you're wrong is a personal failing.

, failing hard at a rules challenge, arguing about it when people noticed you failed, and refusing to acknowledge the objective failings in your rules when they were pointed out to you.

You won't even acknowledge that the rules you posted have mechanics that are objectively shown to be broken.

In the middle a conversation where 2 people don't agree and are talking about what assumptions lead to that disagreement, any time either party goes "Why won't you admit you're wrong?" that's a waste of time. Ok?

You've changed the subject,

Quote me changing the subject. All we talk about is the subject.

It would make me happy if you could stop insulting everyone that doesn't automatically agree with you.

See pages 1-2 of "Why do people fetishize Magcal Tea Party". I don't insult people for disagreeing--I insult people for delivering insulting comments. And being, thereby, stupid--they create the very problem they then complain about. Unless you enjoy being call names, you were stupid to say "shit fit" and that judgment can never change until you admit that was a bad thing to do.

For a dude that's big on people asking you questions before they post anything:

1) You never clarify anything in your posts,

Are you--again--saying I don't answer questions? Because I try real hard to answer every question.

2) You never ask anyone else to clarify what they mean before calling them an idiot or a liar

Usually around here there's no need--you guys just say unambiguously hostile things like "shit fit". Once someone says I am "throwing a shit fit" I don't have to ask a question to determine they are an idiot. And once someone does, say, what DSMatticus does in my sig, I do not have to check to see if they are a liar.

Putting an obligation on someone else that you yourself don't adhere to is arguing in bad faith.

Yes, but I don't do that.

Dude, you got insulted when someone called your games a tactical exercise. [url=http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=360451#360451]

What? Where do you see that? WTF?

So how the fuck can it be an insult against you and your players to say that the rule you wrote when used by an entirely different group of people might not be perfect, when you've pretty much admitted that much already?

For the millionth time "Your rule will not work for xxx people" is a valid criticism "Your rule sucks" is invalid--or is, at least, a very different claim. Do you not see a difference?

Also: if your defense is that "Your rule sucks" is hyperbolic shorthand for "Your rule does not work for me but may be optimal for other parties" then that is a bad defense. That is simply lying (saying a thing not objectively true and you know it).

Except...he's not wrong! You got insulted about something and rushed to defend it, but he was talking about something that very explicitly wasn't your group or playstyle.

Are you lying or mistaken? Because here it is:

That means Clarence is gonna start saying Yes if he isn't already: Do 20s do double damage? Yes. Does that stack with my strength bonus? Yes. Does it stack with my magic sword bonus? Yes. Is this a magic sword? Yes. If I get extra attacks per round can I decide after the first attack who the target of the second attack is? Yes. Can I trip him with just a to-hit roll against dex? Yes. Disarm? Yes. Fighting retreat? Yes. Keep holding this rope with no save even though I just got hit by a fireball? Yes. Can I tell about how many hit points he has? Yes. Can I carry that while I do that? Yes. Do I get a bonus because I'm on a horse? Yes. Do I get a bonus because they're already fighting someone? Yes. Do the troops believe me? Yes. Will they follow me? Yes. Did I intimidate the palace guard? Yes. Can I keep the wizard from casting a spell if I hit him this round? Yes. In every case: if the answer wasn't already yes, it is now. Because you're a goddamn 5th level fighter, ok?

This is awesome for a "power fantasy" game and totally shits all over players who are into it for a tactical thinking exercise where your choices are supposed to matter.

…so there it is. Archmage quoting my words and saying "this…shits all over players who.."

Again: was that a mistake or are you just a liar?

[Zak S]

Dude. THE CRITICISMS OF YOUR RULE WERE LAID OUT RIGHT AFTER YOU MADE IT. You CANNOT go on saying that you don't know what he means because yo seriously just have to go back and read what he said about it over the pages that follows you making the damn rule!

Every criticism I'm aware of has been addressed directly already by me. Go back and read, find one not addressed by me and post it here OR find one that was addressed by me and take the words I say to address it and explain why you think those words were wrong.

[MGuy]

They have been readdressed to you. As I said, I'm not gonna go back and quote mine because people already have. Each time they do you never address it. I'm not going to be yet another person who goes quote mining to prove you wrong just for you to just dodge AGAIN.

[Zak S]

I did not know your gaming style required or involved "no original material". Is that so?

I mean, don't get me wrong, if so: it is shit. (Do you therefore pick you characters' names off a list like Dungeon World? ) But when I made this remark I did not realize it applied to you, or anyone here.

It doesn't matter that my games have original content. It matters that some people do, and you proclaim relativism, but decry such games as shit. It seems that by any actual non-hypocritical standard, you would admit that if you can classify a gaming style that other people like as shit, we could classify your gaming style as shit even though you like it. And then everything is just an argument about what makes a game shitty. An argument you have steadfastly deflected by claiming that nothing could be shitty which works for you.

It works like this:

If you just don't like a game--it might be good anyway.
If you don't like a game and people you value (whether they are people you knwo personally or not) do--it's good. People you value deserve entertainment.
If you don't like a game and nobody you value does--you can say it sucks. Those people don't deserve entertainment.

Like if there was a game you didn't like AND only homophobes did like it--that would be a game I'd safely call sucky. They don't deserve entertainment and that object entertains only them.

So if you wanna argue all my players have zero value and all the people here who like stuff I wrote (I get trackbacks from those threads) have ceased and so I have zero value, plus argue that all the people in the DIY D&D community who use the same kinds of rules I do have zero value and you are 100% sure nobody you might value for any reason might be better entertained the way we do things then, sure, you can say "your rules suck".

It is, of not objectively bad, at least not entertaining anyone you think deserves to be entertained.

This metric, I suspect, would not satisfy you. I suspect what you would like is to somehow convince all people that no matter what D&D rules entertain them--your rules would work better for them and so are objectively better. I do not know why.

[Zak S]

They have been readdressed to you. As I said, I'm not gonna go back and quote mine because people already have. Each time they do you never address it. I'm not going to be yet another person who goes quote mining to prove you wrong just for you to just dodge AGAIN.

You can quote me on this, Mguy. Post your criticism below or link to it--I will answer it.

[Kaelik]

If you don't like a game and nobody you value does--you can say it sucks. Those people don't deserve entertainment.

Well A) People I don't value in any way probably deserve entertainment. But B) That is a far cry from your repeated proclamations that we aren't allowed to say that your rule sucks.

By the way, your rule sucks.

[TheFlatline]

Your social system is still absolutely identical to DM fiat, which is not a rule but pulling a value out of your ass. Your "system" is just your guideline for where in your ass you will pull said pronouncement from. I know absolutely zero additional information about your social system and any clue of how to put in an input and even gently know what might come out of an output. The "argument" that knowing a rule won't necessarily tell you any expected output or range of outputs is bullshit, because that means the majority of your "system" is an "unknown unknown" and that means that your simulation model is fucked and is by definition unreliable from the point of view of statistical analysis.

To put it another way, your social system is a black box and to an outside observer cannot be actually differentiated from you pulling an answer out of thin air because knowing the difference relies on knowing your mental state at the time of the roll. If you can show me how an outside observer, one who is not you nor any player in your game, can tell the difference between you "following the rules" and pulling something randomly out of your ass with the system you posted, I'll amend my statement.

It also relies on a metric fuckton (as opposed to a simple imperial fuckton) of implied house rules that were never mentioned, which is just shitty sloppy effort.

So. As a system that is reproducible by anyone on this planet other than you, your system is shit.

Maybe your system actually is the "best" option you have, best being a relative term referencing the optimal choice among those presented to the chooser, but then again it's obvious you actually know fuck-all about D&D rules, and so any pseudo-consistent, hemi-demi-semi reasonable sort of idea would obviously leap to the forefront as the "best" option.

Oh, and as an aside, you can't hide behind the defense that your gaming group is unorthodox and unusual in the extreme to avoid criticism and then expect to be able to make any kind of generalized statement based on said experience is an invalid argument that is highly hypocritical.

So. TLDNR: Hypocrite. Black Box. Best option of a shitty set of selections is still shitty. Unreliable simulation.

[Zak S]

Your social system is still absolutely identical to DM fiat, which is not a rule but pulling a value out of your ass. Your "system" is just your guideline for where in your ass you will pull said pronouncement from.

How is that different than the DC-difficulty system then?

I mean, the only difference I see is that somewhere in the DMG there's a list of sample DCs.

If your criticism is only "I do not consider this system complete without some examples" then Ok. Fair enough.

It also relies on a metric fuckton (as opposed to a simple imperial fuckton) of implied house rules that were never mentioned, which is just shitty sloppy effort.

It was either leave it open enough to fit whatever system people were using (which is what I did) or make it system-specfic for a system y'all don't know, right?

I mean: kind of catch-22 unless I know PhoneLobsters (unenunciated) system from the start--if I leave it vague at the edges (I did) it can be attacked for being vague. If I make it specific at the edges then I have to then basically explain every single other rule in my house rules it might interact with in order for it to be complete.

Which, if you're clever, you may have noticed rubs up against one of y'alls main criticisms of these kind of rules in general. Basically: MY god man, you can't just put whatever brakes in whatever car!!!! Which is true as far as it goes--but remember, PL's theory was that My procedure for making rules would inevitably lead to rules that bit me on the ass--which he then goalpost-shifted to "bite PhoneLobster on the ass" once the "ok, guys, prove my players hate my game" argument got too much for people to prove.

I have no doubt my rules might bite PhoneLobster on the ass. If so, and if he wanted a rule that fit his assumptions, he shoulda say what more of them were.

So. As a system that is reproducible by anyone on this planet other than you, your system is shit.

Sure. But if my players and I deserve a game we enjoy then they are good for the thing they need to do.

Maybe your system actually is the "best" option you have, best being a relative term referencing the optimal choice among those presented to the chooser, but then again it's obvious you actually know fuck-all about D&D rules.

I have never claimed to be an expert on any published ruleset--only to run a game that is fun and that has rules a lot of people I never met seem to find useful.

Oh, and as an aside, you can't hide behind the defense that your gaming group is unorthodox and unusual in the extreme to avoid criticism and then expect to be able to make any kind of generalized statement based on said experience is an invalid argument that is highly hypocritical.

I don't know or care if they are unusual.

I don't know if, in the Right Handed Scissors or Left Handed Scissors which they are: all I know is both kinds of people need scissors.

[Baad Speeler]

All joking and trolling aside, because let's be honest, that all I have done to him from the beginning. I think I have figured out what Zak's problem is.

He spends all day at his 9-5 watching incredibly hot women get plowed by men that are probably much better endowed than he is.

Men that they probably don't even particularly like .

Then they come over to his house for gaming and shove him firmly into the friend zone.

That has to be damaging to someone's self esteem.

Mystery solved.

I move that we immediately begin referring to him as "Friend Zone"

Also, I would like to ask for volunteers to help buy him a hooker. Because, as previously stated in this thread, obeying the law is only for rules lawyers.

And that boys and girls is what is known in the comedy world as a call back.

Good fight, and good night ladies and gentleman.

[Blicero]

All joking and trolling aside, because let's be honest, that all I have done to him from the beginning. I think I have figured out what Zak's problem is.
He spends all day at his 9-5 watching incredibly hot women get plowed by men that are probably much better endowed than he is.
Men that they probably don't even particularly like .
Then they come over to his house for gaming and shove him firmly into the friend zone.
That has to be damaging to someone's self esteem.
Mystery solved.
I move that we immediately begin referring to him as "Friend Zone"
Also, I would like to ask for volunteers to help buy him a hooker. Because, as previously stated in this thread, obeying the law is only for rules lawyers.
And that boys and girls is what is known in the comedy world as a call back.
Good fight, and good night ladies and gentleman.

Congratulations, Baad Speeler. With that post, you have become what is wrong with the world. Bravo.

[Zak S]

All joking and trolling aside, because let's be honest, that all I have done to him from the beginning. I think I have figured out what Zak's problem is.

He spends all day at his 9-5 watching incredibly hot women get plowed by men....

Male talent doesn't generally hang out on set watching other male talent do scenes, so whatever Showtime reality TV show you get your porn info from lied to you. Sorry.

[Kaelik]

All joking and trolling aside, because let's be honest, that all I have done to him from the beginning. I think I have figured out what Zak's problem is.
He spends all day at his 9-5 watching incredibly hot women get plowed by men that are probably much better endowed than he is.
Men that they probably don't even particularly like .
Then they come over to his house for gaming and shove him firmly into the friend zone.
That has to be damaging to someone's self esteem.
Mystery solved.
I move that we immediately begin referring to him as "Friend Zone"
Also, I would like to ask for volunteers to help buy him a hooker. Because, as previously stated in this thread, obeying the law is only for rules lawyers.
And that boys and girls is what is known in the comedy world as a call back.
Good fight, and good night ladies and gentleman.

You are the worst poster in this thread. And Zak S posts in this thread. You should feel ashamed.

[TheFlatline]

Your social system is still absolutely identical to DM fiat, which is not a rule but pulling a value out of your ass. Your "system" is just your guideline for where in your ass you will pull said pronouncement from.

How is that different than the DC-difficulty system then?

I mean, the only difference I see is that somewhere in the DMG there's a list of sample DCs.

If your criticism is only "I do not consider this system complete without some examples" then Ok. Fair enough.

It also relies on a metric fuckton (as opposed to a simple imperial fuckton) of implied house rules that were never mentioned, which is just shitty sloppy effort.

It was either leave it open enough to fit whatever system people were using (which is what I did) or make it system-specfic for a system y'all don't know, right?

I mean: kind of catch-22 unless I know PhoneLobsters (unenunciated) system from the start--if I leave it vague at the edges (I did) it can be attacked for being vague. If I make it specific at the edges then I have to then basically explain every single other rule in my house rules it might interact with in order for it to be complete.

Which, if you're clever, you may have noticed rubs up against one of y'alls main criticisms of these kind of rules in general. Basically: MY god man, you can't just put whatever brakes in whatever car!!!! Which is true as far as it goes--but remember, PL's theory was that My procedure for making rules would inevitably lead to rules that bit me on the ass--which he then goalpost-shifted to "bite PhoneLobster on the ass" once the "ok, guys, prove my players hate my game" argument got too much for people to prove.

I have no doubt my rules might bite PhoneLobster on the ass. If so, and if he wanted a rule that fit his assumptions, he shoulda say what more of them were.

So. As a system that is reproducible by anyone on this planet other than you, your system is shit.

Sure. But if my players and I deserve a game we enjoy then they are good for the thing they need to do.

Maybe your system actually is the "best" option you have, best being a relative term referencing the optimal choice among those presented to the chooser, but then again it's obvious you actually know fuck-all about D&D rules.

I have never claimed to be an expert on any published ruleset--only to run a game that is fun and that has rules a lot of people I never met seem to find useful.

Oh, and as an aside, you can't hide behind the defense that your gaming group is unorthodox and unusual in the extreme to avoid criticism and then expect to be able to make any kind of generalized statement based on said experience is an invalid argument that is highly hypocritical.

I don't know or care if they are unusual.

I don't know if, in the Right Handed Scissors or Left Handed Scissors which they are: all I know is both kinds of people need scissors.

I can plug in the DC system expectations. If climbing a knotted rope is DC 5 and climbing a sheer wall is DC 30, then I know that climbing up the side of a house with handholds is going to be somewhere in between those two, probably mid-way or maybe slightly higher. I can plug in anticipated actions and judge by the results what's going to happen. I know more about the world looking at those rules. If the DM pulls a DC that's not within that range or is DC 29 or DC 6, I can reasonably suspect that this is DM fiat and there are numbers being pulled out of an ass.

I can plug in fuck-all with your solution because it may or may not require unknown unknowns as an integral part of the solution. In fact, the only thing I know for *sure* about your system is that I have absolutely know way of knowing how important giving away an apple actually *is*, because that value fundamentally is based in theory on all other related social connections of the target. And that's something that no player can hope to possibly keep track of. Otherwise you crop things down to a managable level of one or two people and that's DM Fiat, and when you decide this other person here has given a bushel of apples yesterday, unrelated to what I'm doing, and so an apple means fuck-all today. Which is DM fiat. And I don't know, and have no way of knowing without playing 20 questions out of character, which presents it's own problems.

And again, I don't know when you're playing by your guidelines and when you just decided that fuck it, you're going down in flames and DM fiat takes over. There's no benchmark to know when we've crossed from cooperative storytelling into masturbatory theater.

As far as copping to an admission that your rules are shit for anyone who falls into the Venn Diagram of Does Not Equal You, well... that's kind of the whole argument. It's not even a solution that isn't "publishable", it's literally a "rule" that isn't *playable* if we don't have your brain. I don't see how you can honestly put forward a solution that only works for one person as a solution that is "better" than anything the book has. At least the 10 million people who play D&D can *use* the broken-ass social rules in the core books.

It seems like the entire 19 page thread boils down to "I created a better solution just for myself" (not even for your own group, for without you DMing, even your own group can't use your "solution"). Which is when you get down to it a pretty shitty defense for what was obviously meant to be a far, far more widely cast net. It's the limp-dick argument that Nixon used ("Elect me and my super secret plan I have all worked out will get us out of Vietnam". Reality? He had no plan he pulled it out of his ass), that McCarthy used ("I have here a list of Communist Infiltrators that have subverted the government! Re-elect me because only I know who they are!" Reality? He had no list. He pulled the idea out of his ass because he was looking at not getting reelected), and even what McCain ran on ("I have a plan to get us out of Afghanistan. I'll tell it to you the day after I am sworn in" Reality? Actually who f*cking knows because he never mentioned it again. Ever.) and god only knows how many other instances of "I have the solution all up here" when it's just someone pulling shit out of their ass. We've seen that dog & pony show many times over the years and somehow it always seems full of sound and fury, but signifying little if anything.

So if your rules work specifically for you, bang on. I'm glad you're having fun. I hate the fun police. But as for a general challenge to improve social systems in a generic sense (while using D&D terminology, but I'll let that slide because that's a nitpick), while you may or may not have succeeded in your specific outlier case, in general, because we're not you, by definition, you failed the challenge when you made your own brain specifically critical to the viability of your solution. Even in the left handed right handed scissors analogy you *still* fail because you provide a solution to precisely one DM: you. Nobody else, including members of your group, can use your solution in it's current state. Arguably nobody else except for you can prove that it *is* a solution in it's current state.

I don't know if I'd automatically default to "sucks", but I'd certainly have to default to "incomplete, needs more work".

[DSMatticus]

Okay, can we not make porn star related jabs? It's totally fair game to call him a deceitful douche, what with all the deceitful douchery. But the wildly off-topic attacks at his personal life are just fucking awkward. Plus, I really don't want to talk about the penis of anyone for whom it is a genuine possibility that video evidence is already easily available. If you are about to make an argument that can plausibly be rebuffed by a link to pornhub or whatever, stop and rethink the terrible decision you're making. It's been referenced like four times, and that is four times too many. Sure, most of those were not as juvenile and offensive as the last, but they were similarly awkward and worthless. So let's just not do it.

[wotmaniac]

@fectin:
Fair enough. I concede.

---

@ Zak:
I had this big giant omni-post set up ... and then I realized that I just don't care anymore. I know for fact that you're not actually pay attention; I know for fact that it will not provoke one single iota of new thought from you; and I know for a fact that you'll simply take whatever is said and twist it to some strange parody of what it actually is. Because that's all you've done for 40 fucking pages.

You're hopeless; and I give up.

However, that being said, I thought this bit deserved special attention, as I think that it gives quite the insight in to the inner workings of Zak's clownfuck insanity:

fbmf
"You once said on this message board that admitted internet trolls forfeit all human rights and shouldn't be rendered potentially life saving medical care if they needed it. Do you stand by that statement, or (what I find more likely) in a moment of frustration did you say something you didn't believe? "

Yes, I do believe that trolling (that is: asserting you believe things you don't in order to make the other person mad in the middle of conversations that are allegedly about getting something done) is, humanly, a bad thing to do--regardless of target.
[...]
As for the appropriate punishment for being such a bad person: that's not a topic I can freely discuss on this forum as I understand the rules.

I'm not even sure how this should be responded to.
That's right ladies and gents -- even after being given ample opportunity retract what was assumed to be simple shit-talking, we get this. This guy is actually openly saying, in all literal and legitimate seriousness, that people who merely say things that he happens to judge as being mean-spirited actually deserve to be put to death.
This isn't conjecture on my part -- this is in his own words .... now multiple times.

Dude, you seriously need professional help. And you need to, for the sake of your own mental health, stay way from environments that induce this type of psychoticism/psychosis (such as the Den, for example).

I've come unglued amidst a rant on this board a couple of times myself. But this isn't simply losing your temper -- you're fucking sick.

[Dean]

Zak has spent almost 40 pages being deceitful, intellectually dishonest, hypocritical and inept to a point that made us question his sanity. There's no reason to throw baseless ad hominems at him particularly given his willingness to supply you with completely pertinent reasons to mock him.

[Zak S]

I can plug in the DC system expectations. If climbing a knotted rope is DC 5 and climbing a sheer wall is DC 30, then I know that climbing up the side of a house with handholds is going to be somewhere in between those two, probably mid-way or maybe slightly higher.

So: if you know +1 for a round is the least significant thing The King considers scary/helpful and +10 for lifetime (or your max in your system) is the MOST significant thing then you can calculate all rewards.

I have absolutely know way of knowing how important giving away an apple actually *is*, because that value fundamentally is based in theory on all other related social connections of the target.

No, it's only based on one other connection--the most compelling one that pulls against your request. Which you wrote because you're the GM

And that's something that no player can hope to possibly keep track of.

It's something the PC can sneak around (or not sneak around) and ask about. Which is a cool thing for PCs to do in order to earn their reward.

Who does the king trust most? Who does he fear most? Who should we ask? These all generate good game content.

There's no benchmark to know when we've crossed from cooperative storytelling into masturbatory theater.

There is a precise line: if the GM can show you it was written down before you asked or if the GM can show it being randomly generated--there you fucking go. You know it isn't coop storytelling.

It's not even a solution that isn't "publishable", it's literally a "rule" that isn't *playable* if we don't have your brain.

So does that mean you're going to test my hypothesis with the guy who was looking on this thread and going "Oh I like those rules I'm gonna use them"

The Gmaing Den is not the universe. There are many people who use the rules I put up.

I don't see how you can honestly put forward a solution that only works for one person as a solution that is "better" than anything the book has.

I never said better: I said "works" I said "is good". That is: it's as necessary for the task it is put to as a popular rule.

Again: if you want to revert to popularity you then have to say "left handed scissors suck and right handed ones don't"

It seems like the entire 19 page thread boils down to "I created a better solution just for myself" (not even for your own group, for without you DMing, even your own group can't use your "solution").

No, I am 100% certain many GMs I know would use this system. But even if I didn't: that doesn't mean it doesn't work. A suit that fits one person still fits.

obviously meant to be a far, far more widely cast net.

No. It was not obvious. The entire argument for rulings over rules that started this is the desirability of customized rules that are only micro-applicable. If I then go "Well I think rulings are better than rules for some people because people are different but in order to prove it I will now write a rule that all people will agree is optimal" I would be disproving my own idea.

What I had to prove was that produced the results PL wanted for a group. If PL wanted different results or a diff group, he shoulda said. Or at least explained alllllllll his weird requirements that he left out.

But as for a general challenge to improve social systems in a generic sense (while using D&D terminology,

It was not that--go read the old thread. It was most definitely not that. I only write stuff like that when people pay me.

I don't know if I'd automatically default to "sucks", but I'd certainly have to default to "incomplete, needs more work".

That is an acceptable conclusion.

The theory that no-one could use it but me is unwarranted. And testable: so test it.

[Leress]

Zak,

What I had to prove was that produced the results PL wanted for a group.

But, you didn't, PL said so.

If PL wanted different results or a diff group, he shoulda said. Or at least explained alllllllll his weird requirements that he left out.

Why didn't you ask?

[Zak S]

Zak,

What I had to prove was that produced the results PL wanted for a group.

But, you didn't, PL said so.

How would PL know if my group is experiencing the results he asked for?

If PL wanted different results or a diff group, he shoulda said. Or at least explained alllllllll his weird requirements that he left out.

Why didn't you ask?

I thought he was done with his request. There was no clue about his hidden requirements until revealed later. He hid them for some reason.

[PhoneLobster]

He hid them for some reason.

There was nothing hidden. It was a trap that was the whole point though, to demonstrate that poorly thought out on the spot rulings are prone to falling inadvertently into traps.

So I set you a topic rife with potential complications. The expectation was that you would actually manage to pass the basic requirements but do so in an ill-considered manner that failed under further scrutiny, ie came back to bite you on the ass.

But that isn't what happened. You amazed all and sundry, including me by tripping over your own feet and landing flat on your face and actually flat out failing the basic competency required to even meet the transparent up front primary conditions. And almost all the criticism your rule has faced since has been on it's failings on things that were most certainly not "hidden" from you by all those naughty sub humans conspiring to be out to get you.

Hell even THIS INFORMATION about the nature of the "trappyness" of the request was available up front AND explained to you immediately after and it is STILL a mystery to you because you are just that bad at this.

[Baad Speeler]

The difference between me and him, is that he is clearly trying to make sense, I just don't give a shit.

I generally navigate to The Den, read some useful information, and go on my way.

If I have dip shit house rules that work for my group, despite all reason, I don't attempt to spread them to the internet, and then insist that anyone who thinks they are dip shit rules is clearly stupid and/or lying.

When I do, in fact feel the need to spread my opinion to the internet, and everyone who reads my opinion, states that I am clearly delusional/wrong/retarded, I stop and think that maybe, just maybe it is I, not the entire website's member base that is in the wrong. I don't carry on the argument for 19 goddamn pages.

So, after 16 pages of watching the train wreck that was this thread, I decided to have some fun and enjoy myself.

If I offended anyone but him, I sincerely apologize, that was not my intent.

[Leress]

How would PL know if my group is experiencing the results he asked for?

But the challenge wasn't for your group, but for PL's since he is the one gave the request.

I thought he was done with his request. There was no clue about his hidden requirements until revealed later. He hid them for some reason.

He didn't hide anything. (At best you can say he didn't specify the system, but you could have asked for clarification). He evaluated your rules and he found them not good.

EDIT: Phone Ninja'd

EDIT:

Badd: If you have nothing to add that is pertinent to the thread, just sit back, hit refresh/reload, and enjoy the show.

[Zak S]

He hid them for some reason.

There was nothing hidden. It was a trao that was the whole point though, to demonstrate that poorly thought out on the spot rulings are prone to falling inadvertently into traps.

There you go: it was a Trao. It was both misspelled and in bad faith.
And yet somehow I came out of it with a system that has fallen into no trao out in the world where we use it.
According to PhoneLobster my game should have exploded MONTHS ago.
Lobster wanted to prove that rulings not rules is bad because if I make a rule and then use it then it will not work when I use it in my game.

…..aaaaaaaand yet it actually works.

Now, yeah, there are a bunch of weird people insisting that it wouldn't work for anyone else (which it might, nobody here's proved shit) but….that wasn't the point of the argument was it?

PL never said "Make a rule for ME" he said "Make a rule that works" he did not say who for.

[Zak S]

How would PL know if my group is experiencing the results he asked for?

But the challenge wasn't for your group, but for PL's since he is the one gave the request.

Then. He. Should. Have. Included, That. (Crazy). Requirement. In. His. Request.

I thought he was done with his request. There was no clue about his hidden requirements until revealed later. He hid them for some reason.

He didn't hide anything. (At best you can say he didn't specify the system, but you could have asked for clarification). He evaluated your rules and he found them not good.

SOME THINGS PEOPLE HAVE ASSERTED WERE REQUIREMENTS AND SO IF HE WANTED THEM HE HID IT:

1. According to Frank this is not a "social currency system" (so I guess Social currency System has some jargon meaning other than a system about social interaction featuring currency you can use to aid in that social interaction.)

2. It has to work for PL's group (which would be crazy, because how could I be expected to make a ruling for a group I don't know? I could make a rule for one, maybe, if you paid me, but not a ruling--I don't know the people in his (perhaps notional) group.

3. "The whole point of a social currency system is to promote altruism" allegedly--not in the request

4. Assume a low-competency GM

5. Assume a railroad-plot where it should be almost impossible (or difficult to a subjective mystery degree) to kill a king, for instance

6. "when I say 'However at the same time it is important that you cannot accrue large amounts of incremental small pieces of currency like a gift of an apple a day and then cash them in for a kingdom. ' what I actually mean is that you can't accrue ANY kind of currency and exchange it for a kingdom, not just small incremental amounts like an apple a day

7. Assume the GM can't design NPCs and has no idea what their personalities are

8. Assume it must not simply result in good returns at the table but also emulate human interaction in real life to………..a degree that is not infinite but that matches the level whatever enraged simulation-nutcase is pounding on his keyboard at the moment.

9. Even though the time limit is one minute this is secretly a typing test and you;ll be expected to provide examples of acceptable values rather than just the range

10. Even though the time limit is one minute this is secretly a typing test and any clarification will be considered a modfication.


Here's the request so you can see ALLLLLL the things not in it:

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

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

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

Make THAT work. You have 1 Minute.

For a few examples. ALLLLLLLL of those requirements were hidden. If you assumed them: you are more like some anonymous internet trolling nerd rules lawyer who calls himself PhoneLobster than you are like me. That's ok. I'm not.

[PhoneLobster]

There was nothing hidden. It was a trap that was the whole point though, to demonstrate that poorly thought out on the spot rulings are prone to falling inadvertently into traps.
...
Hell even THIS INFORMATION about the nature of the "trappyness" of the request was available up front AND explained to you immediately after and it is STILL a mystery to you because you are just that bad at this.

Suffice it to say, it is most certainly not in bad faith that when you say "I can write any rule perfect just ask me I dare you!" for me to deliberately ask a "trap" rule that I regard as most likely to demonstrate and prove my claim that you can't do that.

Your current position is, hilariously that you are DEMANDING that I had instead helpfully soft balled something easy for you to assist you in proving my claim wrong, because that, and only that is what YOU define as arguing in good faith. Because you are fucking insane.

Hell, as it stood I very charitably soft balled several aspects of the request. The "No Apple Stacking" wasn't just a challenging hurdle, it was a fucking direct instruction to avoid one of the most common fucking failures people make when attempting that rule. AND YOU STILL FUCKING FELL FACE FIRST INTO APPLE STACKING.