Why do people fetishize Magic Tea Party

[K]

No one says rules shouldn't be good - but a good rule you don't need is still a rule you don't need to learn, or look up. If you don't need rules for sex then even if there were the perfect sex rules the cost of looking them up or learning them would be too high for what they offer.

"Sex rules" is a strawman. Rulings about sex are equally awful because it's a bad thing for a game to even address because you don't need it and it creeps people out.

The actual problem is that rulings are rules. That's why the word is in there.

Not letting people know your rules before they appear out of your ass has nothing to do with rules-heavy or rules-light because deviating from the accepted rules in a rules-light game is as heavy a sin as doing it in a rules-heavy game.

[Cyberzombie]

Like I said, there is no war between rules-light and rules-heavy people.

You could have fooled me, because I see all littered through this thread various attacks on rules-light people. Whether it's calling PCs stupid for not looking up rules fast enough, or calling people lazy cheaters for not bothering to look up rules. The vast majority of the insults are coming from the rules-heavy crowd. It's fine to say that you don't like rules-lite gaming, but when you're actually insulting the gamers themselves, yeah I'm calling that a war.

There is a war between rules (heavy or light) people and the "we are too good/bad for rules" people who think that they have important things to say about rules that everyone should listen to.

Both sides have some important things to say. Getting too elaborate with your rules leads to a point where people start ignoring various rules. The trap of rules-heavy is that you keep writing more and more rules until your game turns into a cumbersome beast whose complexity makes it nearly unplayable. A good example of rules-heavy methodology gone wrong is the matrix rules in Shadowrun (any edition). Even in the editions where the rules are fully functional, they're still pointlessly time consuming and complex.

Sometimes a game can benefit from less rules.

[Username17]

Cyberzombie, don't be a twatshitter. People who are making fun of you for being an idiot who can't read a book aren't exclusively "rules heavy people," they are simply people who acknowledge that they want to have rules that are good. Some of the games they play, that we play, are very very simple and have few rules. Some of them are very complicated and have many rules. But in no cases would any of us play a game that was too complicated for us to play. That's just stupid.

If you're genuinely such an idiot that it takes you ten minutes to look up a damn rule in a game with a functional index like 3rd edition D&D or Shadowrun 4, then I guess you have to play simple games where you never have to look anything up like Munchhausen. Which is fine, but it's still not an argument for pulling shit out of your ass instead of using the actual rules.

-Username17

[Blade]

I guess the context is important.

In a campaign of a complex game, if I want to jump through a glass window and the rules don't cover it, I'm ok with the GM making rules, but I'd expect him to tell me the rules before letting me confirm whether or not I really jump through the glass window.
If the rules cover it and state that it does light wounds, I would still be okay with the GM wanting it to do heavy wounds, but I'd expect him to tell it to me before I try, and to keep heavy wounds in all subsequent attempts to jump through glass windows in that campaign.
And no matter if the rules cover it or not, if the GM tells me that it will be solved by rolling some NPC's charisma stat, dividing it by the logic of a unicorn and applying the result as the damage of the glass, I'll stop playing with that GM.

In a for fun mini game of Smurf RPG that we play to kill half an hour while waiting for a late player to arrive, I really don't care what rules the GM come up with and if they're consistent with the rules of some other Smurf RPG game we had before.

[Cyberzombie]

If you're genuinely such an idiot that it takes you ten minutes to look up a damn rule in a game with a functional index like 3rd edition D&D or Shadowrun 4, then I guess you have to play simple games where you never have to look anything up like Munchhausen. Which is fine, but it's still not an argument for pulling shit out of your ass instead of using the actual rules.

I apologize, I didn't realize I was speaking to the pope of RPGs.

I'm sorry your holiness for playing the game wrong. I thought the purpose of the game was to have fun, but boy... was I mistaken. What an idiot I am. It seems the real reason I should have been playing D&D was to get the hallowed Frank Trollman stamp of approval. Now my gaming group is excommunicated and branded as D&D heretics, deemed unfit to even play the game by his holiness, the divine authority on all things RPG.

Silly me, thinking something like having fun mattered. There is no room for fun in RPGs! This is SERIOUS FUCKIN' BUSINESS. I see that now.

As penance for my sins, I will enter into a monastery and devote myself to ceaseless study of the rulebooks. Only when I am able to recite every verse by rote will I be worthy to again roll a d20.

[DSMatticus]

Cyberzombie, your petulant whining is not showing anyone what's what or giving anyone their comeuppance. No matter how determined you are to throw your sulky little temper tantrums that people aren't being nice to you on the internet, literally zero people here give a shit about your bruised feelings. If you can't actually make any fucking points anywhere at all in your useless bitchfits about how "Kaelik is a meanie butt!" and "Frank Trollman thinks he's smarter than me!", then you have nothing to say.

Now, shifting gears from "Jesus fucking Christ, Cyberzombie whines a lot" to "Jesus fucking Christ, Cyberzombie is stupid," it would do you good to understand the distinction between (rulings vs rules) and (rules-light vs rules-heavy).

A rule is a prewritten mechanic for resolving an action which could occur at the table.

A rules-heavy system is a system in which rules are abundant and narrowly scoped.

A rules-light system is a system in which rules are few and broadly scoped.

A ruling is a method for resolving an action which is created as it occurs at the table as opposed to in advance (which would be a rule).

You are conflating the last two of those. Oopsies. But the good news is now you know what those words mean and you can stop doing that, right? HAHAHAHAHAHA oh well worth a shot

[MGuy]

If you're genuinely such an idiot that it takes you ten minutes to look up a damn rule in a game with a functional index like 3rd edition D&D or Shadowrun 4, then I guess you have to play simple games where you never have to look anything up like Munchhausen. Which is fine, but it's still not an argument for pulling shit out of your ass instead of using the actual rules.

I apologize, I didn't realize I was speaking to the pope of RPGs.

I'm sorry your holiness for playing the game wrong. I thought the purpose of the game was to have fun, but boy... was I mistaken. What an idiot I am. It seems the real reason I should have been playing D&D was to get the hallowed Frank Trollman stamp of approval. Now my gaming group is excommunicated and branded as D&D heretics, deemed unfit to even play the game by his holiness, the divine authority on all things RPG.

Silly me, thinking something like having fun mattered. There is no room for fun in RPGs! This is SERIOUS FUCKIN' BUSINESS. I see that now.

As penance for my sins, I will enter into a monastery and devote myself to ceaseless study of the rulebooks. Only when I am able to recite every verse by rote will I be worthy to again roll a d20.

The interesting thing about what's happening here is that even if CZ or Fuchs at some point realize how they've derped this up, they've got pages and pages of it to look back on. I am curious about what it's going to feel like when the harsh reality of it all sets in. I'd imagine that the shame at the temper tantrums, baseless accusations, and outright ignorance of what the conversation topic actually has been would give their egos quite a bruising. This is the kind of thing cognitive dissonance functions for right?

[zugschef]

The interesting thing about what's happening here is that even if CZ or Fuchs at some point realize how they've derped this up, they've got pages and pages of it to look back on.

I'm telling you, they're way past that point, as well as Zak who has left the thread because of exactly that.

[talozin]

I'm telling you, they're way past that point, as well as Zak who has left the thread because of exactly that.

"This thread" or "hang out with strippers and porn stars". Tough choice.

[K]

I'm telling you, they're way past that point, as well as Zak who has left the thread because of exactly that.

"This thread" or "hang out with strippers and porn stars". Tough choice.

I don't think it's that hard a choice when one option involves herpes.

FORUM HERPES!

[shadzar]

"Sex rules" is a strawman. Rulings about sex are equally awful because it's a bad thing for a game to even address because you don't need it and it creeps people out.

Which proves K is incapable of logical thought, when a single example is taken to extreme literal, rather than its generic point.

There are no rules for breathing that you have some RNG to look to to make sure a character remembered to do it is there? But there are rules for breathing WHEN NEEDED, such as trying to go underwater for extended periods of times. "breathing rules" would be stupid to have just for the sake of having for land dwelling creatures that breathe as a normal function.

this is the point, you dont need rues for common sense.

anyaction you "handwave" in the game and jsut assume it gets done is one of those unneded rules, like tracking whether the character ate or have rations, the amount of ammo being assumed to be replenished after a fight, not counting encumbrance.

these are all things for which rules existed, but were REMOVED from the game, because they were good rules, but nobody was interested in using them, knowing them, or wasting time looking them up, just like "sex rules" was removed when the RANDOM HARLOT TABLE was not reprinted in 2nd edition AD&D.

The actual problem is that rulings are rules. That's why the word is in there.

The problem is that rulings are rules that were changed, "rules" are not set in stone and ARE subject to change. "rulings" are not universally used at ALL game table.

the problem with the "rules not rulings" crowd is that they think they know better than anyone else because they strive to be the next Mike Mearls to have their name in some second-rate RPG product and get to lord that over people and walk around in their psychopathic delusions claiming "I'm a 30th level game designer."

"rules not rulings" people need to learn they are not infallible, and stop being so fucking arrogant as to think everyone worships them. they need to stop being attention whores. they need to gain some social skills, to understand that people are different and stop being bigots.

so the problem that some peoples need to understand is rules are just rulings that were made and put in print under some brand name and copyright.

At conventions, in letters, and over the phone I'm often asked for the instant answer to a fine point of the game rules. More often than not, I come back with a question--what do you feel is right? And the people asking the questions discover that not only can they create an answer, but that their answer is as good as anyone else's. The rules are only guidelines.

David "Zeb" Cook
2/9/89

Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

people were doing this when Gary had his name on the cover of the books, and people have been doing it since his death. once a product gets into the hand of the consumer it belongs to THEM. WotC designers for D&D, Shadowrun designers, Pathfinder designers, have no more say in it. they were paid for their work-for-hire, and they gave the company what the company wanted. no consumer is bound by having to agree the company view is right.

this is what you wannabe game designers need to learn that even Gygax had to eat a truck full of humble pie over. "rules" for an RPG are just something that people have to build on and change to suit their own needs.

Golf has "rules". one of them is "plat it where it lays". how often do people jump into lakes to knock their balls out of them? they don't. they created a loophole in the "rules" to cheat them and you just take a loss of strokes just like for a lost ball. they created a "ruling" to circumvent the rules before the rules were FUCKED.

so do people have to take strokes for hitting a ball in water, or can they still play it where it lays? who gets to decide on which "ruling" is used for everyone in the world? NOBODY. people get to choose for themselves when they play. so too in RPGs.

[shadzar]

I guess the context is important.

In a campaign of a complex game, if I want to jump through a glass window and the rules don't cover it, I'm ok with the GM making rules, but I'd expect him to tell me the rules before letting me confirm whether or not I really jump through the glass window.

this is the DM v player shit that people are still stuck to. this is why the "rules not rulings" crowd has a hrd-on for lording RAW over everyone. they think that DMs do NOT do what you said. they think that there is no rule in a book, then they cannot try something (see single-class fighter in D&D picking pockets)


in fact, most DO like you say. make a ruling, then let the player decide if he want to follow through with that action.

you way which is correct:

Blade: I want to jump through that glass window.
DM: complex explanation with 50% base chance of success with no injury, plus your X modifier
Blade: *rolls dice* #OR# "I will go through the door instead"


the way people see "rulings" because of their buttsore from playing with bad DMs and attribute that behavior to ALL DMs:

Blade: I want to jump through that glass window.
DM: Ok you jump through the window, roll a d20
Blade: *rolls dice*
DM: the smoldering remains of your character are eaten by the rats and they enjoy them as a delicacy.

so because they can ONLY see it this way, they think that EVERY rule that can be made, should be made and followed FROM THE BOOK, simply because they do not trust their DMs.

thankfully you get it, as do MOST DMs. sadly the "rules not rulings" crowd does not.

[deaddmwalking]

The actual problem is that rulings are rules. That's why the word is in there.

The problem is that rulings are rules that were changed, "rules" are not set in stone and ARE subject to change. "rulings" are not universally used at ALL game table.

Shad, you're still missing the point. If you're using a ruling in place of an absence of rules, nobody has an issue with that. If you're using a ruling to 'fix' a bad rule that you just discovered, nobody has an issue with that.

If your rules are nebulous, have not been communicated to the players, and change capriciously based upon GM whim (inconsistent rulings made each time an action is declared) you may have players who enjoy the heck out of your game, but there are also some players that have serious, legitimate issues with that style of play.

The fact is, it is such a difficult to defend position that nobody in this thread is willing to defend it. Those who purport to use 'rulings not rules' have heavily emphasized their dedication to using the ruling consistently - making it a defacto 'rule'; a houserule, but a rule never-the-less. Nobody here objects to 'houserules' as long as they're 'good'. Good, of course, is subject to the preferences of the particular playing group. If a 'ruling' results in a houserule that is 'objectively worse' than the published rule, it's a shame that the group isn't using the rule that would make them happier. Making 'rulings' works best when you know what the rules suggest - because that gives you a basis toward determining whether your 'ruling' is BETTER or WORSE than the published rule for your group. If you don't know the rule, you can't possibly know how your 'ruling' compares. Now, 'good enough' to resolve a situation if it seems like a 'minor issue' and unlikely to come up again, it might not be worth the 60 seconds to look up - but since rulings often create 'optimal strategies' they tend to come up over and over again - so spending a little extra time to come up with a working 'rule' is probably worthwhile - and since usually that means looking up the rule on a hypertext document on your phone using 'google voice search' or other easily accessible technology (like an Index), figuring out the rules is RARELY an onerous task - or at least, it shouldn't be for a well-organized and accessible game.

Edit - An Example for Clarity
In a game, someone throws someone through a window for the first time. The GM has seen a movie where someone was severely lacerated by the breaking glass and died instantly. The GM rules that being thrown through a window deals 12d6 damage and requires a Fortitude save or you will continue to lose 1d6 hit points each round due to blood loss.

The 'ruling' has some serious flaws. First of all, hacking someone with a greatsword doesn't do 'bleed' damage. Further, the damage seems well out of line with weapons like a greatsword. Depending on the movie you refer to, you can also find people who suffered virtually NO damage from jumping through a window. What ends up happening is that what was intended as a simple resolution to a single one-time event now becomes a 'strategy'. The PCs are constantly packing sheets of glass into extra-dimensional space so they can throw their enemies through them. OOPS.

Considering how silly that game sounds, I would suggest revisiting the ruling - or being more careful when called to make a ruling in the first place. People like Zak have indicated that they'll stand by their ruling no matter what. Unless we accept that people are incapable of making a mistake, that position is impossible to defend.

[nockermensch]

>I finally got it!
>
>After reading this entertaining discussion I finally see clearly the
>spirits of the games. For the longest time I thought 1E being an
>unplayable mess of arbitrary rules, but this is only because I was wrong
>on assuming that all that junk is actually supposed to be followed. Now
>I understand that the True Spirit of AD&D is: Make Things Up!
>
>Gygax filled page after page with the Things he happened to Make Up
>during HIS games to serve not as rules, but as guidelines to train a
>prospecting DM of how to act. Any DM can use those arbitrary kludges if
>a similiar situation happen in his game, but at the same time he's also
>encouraged by the Spirit of the Rules to Make more Things Up as new
>situations happen! And damn the player who dares to question the
>validity of that judgement, because the DM is (obviously) the supreme
>authority of his game.
>
>Now, with this spirit in mind I can really appreciate the beauty of
>AD&D.
>
>Thank you.

This post got me insta-banned from Dragonsfoot, years and years ago. I think it's very pertinent to the current discussion, and helps to explain shad's mindset.

[Mask_De_H]

That post (and this abortion of a thread) is why I contend that Dungeon World, in its not-a-gameness, captures the spirit of old school D&D perfectly. You can't even charitably call Old School D&D a game under modern understandings of the term.

The "rulings not rules" ethos boils down to: Make Shit Up Because the DM Is Idiot God-king.

[fectin]

Shadzar's golf example is great, but proves him wrong. USGA maintains rules for golf, and separately maintains "decisions", which are rulings describing how to apply those rules in specific edge cases. Here are the rules and decisions for water hazards:
http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Rule-26/

My favorite ruling is for rule 18 though:

A player plays towards this obscured area and cannot tell where the ball comes to rest. When the players are near the green, they see a boy running away with a ball in his hand. The boy throws the ball back and the player identifies it as his ball.

[K]

That post (and this abortion of a thread) is why I contend that Dungeon World, in its not-a-gameness, captures the spirit of old school D&D perfectly. You can't even charitably call Old School D&D a game under modern understandings of the term.

The "rulings not rules" ethos boils down to: Make Shit Up Because the DM Is Idiot God-king.

The problem is that Dungeon World has too many rules for what it produces.

Seriously, all those rules and dicerolling only gets in the way of pure MTPing that is the final product. You'd really be better off just sitting around with some friends and an equipment page and leaving the dice and books at home.

I honestly played DnD like that when I was 12 and too broke to buy actual DnD books and people loved the shit out of it. It really is a superior method of playing if you want MTP in your RPG.

[shadzar]

If your rules are nebulous, have not been communicated to the players, and change capriciously based upon designer's whim (inconsistent rulings made each time an action is declared) you may have players who enjoy the heck out of your game, but there are also some players that have serious, legitimate issues with that style of play.

fixed that for you and bolded it so you can see where the rulings come into play as VERY useful.

this is what people are talking about. i don't care if Frank (BECMI or TGD) thinks they can write the best rules ever, because they cannot. the simple fact is that someone out there will not like a single rule and have to change it over and over to find something that works, and as soon as the group composition changes, the ruling may have to be changed again, is the point of "rulings not rules".

"rulings not rules" is basically against RAW and rules lawyers. it is as simple as that. people that lord the rules over others as higher than the right to have fun, is where the problem lies.

AD&D was a toolbox, and people fucked up trying to use either version as RAW. 3.x was fucked up because you couldn't play it RAW. 4th edition was fucked up because it was a TTMMORPG badly emulated in dead-tree stock.

this is what people want to learn. "rulings not rules" strengthens DMs ability to make a judgement on what should be when the designers fuck up, and we are talking about people like Mike Mearls who was born solely to fuck up.

the moment you think your game will, can, or does suit everyone, is the moment you royally fucked up. thus "rulings not rules" will always be required because not evryone will agree with YOUR imagination view, and their own will trump it via "rulings not rules" since they have to throw out things that simply do NOT work for them and their imagination.

if evolution is the key to survival and BAB replaced THAC) due to it, then "rulings not rules" is the key to RPG survival as they will be everchanging.

[shadzar]

>I finally got it!
>
>After reading this entertaining discussion I finally see clearly the
>spirits of the games. For the longest time I thought 1E being an
>unplayable mess of arbitrary rules, but this is only because I was wrong
>on assuming that all that junk is actually supposed to be followed. Now
>I understand that the True Spirit of AD&D is: Make Things Up!
>
>Gygax filled page after page with the Things he happened to Make Up
>during HIS games to serve not as rules, but as guidelines to train a
>prospecting DM of how to act. Any DM can use those arbitrary kludges if
>a similiar situation happen in his game, but at the same time he's also
>encouraged by the Spirit of the Rules to Make more Things Up as new
>situations happen! And damn the player who dares to question the
>validity of that judgement, because the DM is (obviously) the supreme
>authority of his game.
>
>Now, with this spirit in mind I can really appreciate the beauty of
>AD&D.
>
>Thank you.

This post got me insta-banned from Dragonsfoot, years and years ago. I think it's very pertinent to the current discussion, and helps to explain shad's mindset.

and the part i bolded is probably what got you banned, and also where you just turned into an asshole. had not you said that you would have been mostly right about AD&D, save for the fact that everything wasnt "playtested" to make it for a fair tournament environment. that is what RPGA was for to give that environment. the home version always plays different and AD&D embraced that to allow people to play what and how they wanted.

@USGA.. never heard of them and could give two shits less. are you trying to say when i play, then i am not playing golf because i don't follow some schmucks way of playing? (See Caddyshack 2, Mrs Esterhouse )

also i assume the US in USGA stands for United States.. well what does that matter in the UK? Saudi? Japan? who gives a shit about 'Muricans way there? Scotland, the inventors, must follow US standards?

and this is why people will NEVER agree with "rules not rulings" people because of those like fectin. they ARE the asshole DMs that need to be controlled that fuck people over.

[fectin]

Actually, no. You aren't playing golf. You're just screwing around with clubs.

[deaddmwalking]

If your rules are nebulous, have not been communicated to the players, and change capriciously based upon designer's whim (inconsistent rulings made each time an action is declared) you may have players who enjoy the heck out of your game, but there are also some players that have serious, legitimate issues with that style of play.

fixed that for you and bolded it so you can see where the rulings come into play as VERY useful.

Shadzar - you so crazy...

The designer can't change the rules once the product ships. I mean, he can suggest corrections (errata) but each table gets to decide whether to use their own rule, the original rule, or the updated rule. As long as they're using a rule that most people at the table feel works for them, there's no problem.

But if no rules are being used and the rules are only decided when an action is declared (a ruling) players won't know what is happening, and their chances of success improve by sucking off the GM.

Since Designers can't make rulings at the table (unless they also happen to be playing that particular game), they can't take away the rules and force a ruling instead.

[Fuchs]

But if no rules are being used and the rules are only decided when an action is declared (a ruling) players won't know what is happening, and their chances of success improve by sucking off the GM.

If the rule is known by a player, then there's no need for a ruling. Rulings only come into play when no one knows the rule - that means the player won't know what's happening in either case, since he too doesn't know the rule.

[OgreBattle]

What exactly makes a game rules lite but yet not requiring rulings to be made for.things the rules don't cover?

How does a rules lite.game resolve that jump through a window pane?

[fectin]

Generally, good rules lite games are also much more abstracted, and have much simpler resolution mechanics.

In Amber, for example, you have a small pile of stats (4, IIRC), and you just succeed on most unopposed actions. On opposed ones, higher stat wins.

So, for jumping through a window pane: you succeed. There may be flavor text about getting cut up, but it has no direct rules effect.

[deaddmwalking]

But if no rules are being used and the rules are only decided when an action is declared (a ruling) players won't know what is happening, and their chances of success improve by sucking off the GM.

If the rule is known by a player, then there's no need for a ruling. Rulings only come into play when no one knows the rule - that means the player won't know what's happening in either case, since he too doesn't know the rule.

So you're now saying that the GM never needs to make a ruling when the GM doesn't know the rule but the player does?

That actually tends to be the situation where this kind of conflict comes up. Someoen knows the rule, and the GM decides that a ruling is more appropriate, and for some reason the ruling is less favorable to the player than the rules as written.