"Real role-players don't roll dice!" and other such madness

[shadzar]

roleplaying is the decision making and descriptions that fall OUTSIDE the realm of the dice.

"roll-playing" is not doing anything but picking some skill and rolling dice for it, with no reason except "succeed at task". why did they pick diplomacy over bluff? because it had the higher bonus.

roll-playing involves playing the numbers game, role-playing involves using the numbers ONLY when needed.

in the case of how the hydra lost its head.. that is role-playing ONLY if you have dice that states enough damage was done to "kill" it. otherwise it is story-telling, of which Rich Burlew is good at. but storytelling does not make for a game.

you must have dice to add the game portion, and you must have story. one without the other creates something else.

can you tell a story without using dice? of course, but the latest Drizzt novel is not a game.

what is the story behind the time that the player Bob and his friends rolled a 20 against the king? there isnt one because it was just dice rolling.

for D&D, it requires both. it requires both components. you can play without either of the components, but dont delude yourself or others to claim you are playing D&D. you are playing something WITH D&D, but not playing D&D.

[tenuki]

You're all having this debate on the merits of consistently having the description always follow the roll, which parts of the description should be regarded as pertaining to statement of intent and thusly precede the roll, what constitutes a sufficient statement of intent in the social interaction subsystem. (Or 'social combat'; I don't mean to exclude the low-brow school of TTRPG.)

Besides each others' points, you've also missed this:

And for that matter, combat would be pretty damn boring if it came down to single attack roll. Even a random encounter with some bears in the woods has more options and tactics than that. Who the fuck wants starting a war with the elves to be less interesting than a random encounter?

Pre-fuckin'-cisely. Please allow me to elaborate on that point. Some people here appear to think there is nothing remarkable about their game if

- you can go and start a war in a ten-minute conversation that gets resolved with one roll of the dice and a generously estimated two minutes of actual gameplay, and then,

- after having started it, you go and fight in the war and throw tens of dice for every fucking combat turn for session upon session.

I mean, just look at the disparity in scale. If you think that is or should be the norm, your remaining sense of proportion must be a stunted, pitiful thing, maggoty white from being locked away in the dark for so long, covered in its own shit, having long since given up its mewling pleas for your attention.

I also suggest that you go and seek out people who actually have had social interaction at some point in their past. I promise, it will do wonders for your game. You will soon see that while reducing the disposition of one presumably sentient individual towards another to a single scale ranging from "stabs face" to "sucks cock" may be a helpful guideline sometimes, mistaking this scale for something binding or even exclusive makes for some exceedingly uninteresting NPC interaction.

[PhoneLobster]

Tenuki, you may be a bit new so let me point this out for you.

Ice9's statement about reducing combat to a single roll is rather dishonest on his part for a number of reasons.

1) It is not actually synonymous with what his opponents are arguing at all.

2) His actual demands that all goals actions and contexts be accounted for and subsumed into a single modified roll are a lot closer to the dreaded "one roll combat" scenario than what he argues against.

3) When presented with any form of Social mechanic sufficiently complex and abstracted to resemble the regular combat system Ice9 has a history of freaking out and screaming demanding instead a single roll with an infinite sized list of infinite sized modifiers instead.

The ENTIRE argument Ice9 and Swordslinger have presented on this thread of pointing out aspects of typical regular combat systems like targeting and modifiers and variant special action goals, has been deeply dishonest and intellectually flawed. Yes those things exist in the regular combat system, and are often good things, but the mechanics Ice9 and friends are arguing in favor of have almost no connection to those precedents and indeed what Ice9 and friends want is pretty much the exact opposite.

They basically have decided to adopt the premise of their opponents arguments as their own and then without connecting the dots pull an underwear gnome style claim that it supports their own insanity. Which is easy for the likes of Ice9 and Swordslinger who don't actually understand how ANYTHING works so not connecting the dots is just everyday business for them.

[tenuki]

Fuck what else Swordslinger and Ice9 wrote.

Just because I quoted a paragraph of Ice9's doesn't make me share Swordslinger's every opinion, or does it? I think I made my own case. If you check the thread, you'll find I wrote something in a similar vein relatively early in the discussion.

So why don't you answer to what I'm actually saying instead of trying to paint me as the unwitting member of some idiot faction?

[PhoneLobster]

Just because I quoted a paragraph of Ice9's doesn't make me share Swordslinger's every opinion, or does it?

I only referred to aspects of their claims and demands relevant to that quote.

So why don't you answer to what I'm actually saying

So... I dunno say something like "If you want complex abstracted social combat welcome to basically agreeing with me." Which is pretty similar to my initial response anyway.

But all in all if what you want from your social mechanics is a "social combat system" of the same complexity, balance and abstraction as regular combat then you really should consider not vocally agreeing with statements made in direct opposition to that. Even if those statements are so deeply confused that they are actually evidence AGAINST the opposition to abstracted social combat mechanics.

PS another thing...

I mean, just look at the disparity in scale.

Did you know Ice9 recently jumped on the band wagon of claiming level 1 barmaids should be allowed to force level 18 barbarian god kings into starting wars with "the elves" and should be able to do so as the easiest action in the game as long as the GM decided he liked the "context"? (with the proviso that for some unstated reason the GM would ALWAYS be a bitch and and make up new complexities for the context on the spot to punish you from trying, only he also simultaneously wouldn't because he also demands level 1 barmaids MUST be able to do this or... else... or something?)

You DO realize that it is directly through abstraction and removing the power of infinite arbitrary contextual modifiers and tying potential success and rewards to your character level or advancement system just as with regular abstracted combat that you fix this whole "disparity of scale" thing right?

And that perforce MUST involve a limited finite and known number of goals and defeat states for social combat. Preferably a small one. And preferably one on par in value with defeating the same opponents in regular combat since you just paid the same complexity and play time costs.

If you don't like the broad generic state "charm person" model you had best be making up your own 4 defeat state or less model to replace it.

[tenuki]

I used to be of the school that's tried to model everything to the minutest detail in their game mechanics, but I swore off. I like my games somewhat lighter on the rules now, preferably so that I never have to look anything up. (I usually trim a game system of what I consider excessive mechanics, and I have a decently sized memory.) My players, mostly people who've played for decades, appreciate the faster pace and don't mind if I fill in the gaps in the rules ad hoc.

As for social mechanics, I use hard and fast rules only for trivial/boring stuff like haggling for the price of food, arrows, a pack mule. I find meaningful social interaction too complex to state in game terms with a reasonable level of detail, so I mostly just wing it based on rough guidelines.

I make secret Cha/first impression rolls when the PCs meet someone new, but I interpret the results rather loosely. For example, my NPCs tend to want to talk with charismatic members of the party more, unless I have a specific PC in mind whom I want to inflict that NPC upon for story purposes.

Other social rolls I ask for at points during the interaction that I consider important for some reason, taking the results as a hint about the rough direction for things to proceed. I assign modifiers based on what the player says in character. I use the fucking looks of the faces of the other players as an indicator for well the acting player did, because I value my players' opinion and want them to entertain each other with their characters. In a word, you might call it pure arbitrarium. I don't want a system, however detailed, to limit the game to what it's capable of describing.

[PhoneLobster]

So in short form. You don't actually use social mechanics, you use fairy tea party, you do not in fact have/support social actions as interesting, elaborate and powerful as regular combat so your invocation of the "that would be like making elaborate normal combat into one single roll!" quote is... odd... because it bears no resemblance to your preferred social mechanics.

Which are basically NONE, you described a large pile of close enough to pure roll free fairy tea party instead. Perhaps the quote you are looking for is more like "that would be like making an elaborate normal combat into pure roll free fairy tea party". Though that would be more a quote against your apparent preferred model.

Interestingly the pure fairy tea party angle is what you legitimately do when you want a part of the game to totally NOT MATTER. And it's a great way of filling an unimportant gap with pure GM ass pulled material that better facilitates the parts of the game you care about enough to have actual rules for. Which would appear to be the blood and guts combat all the "but I'm a special socially focused player who uses no social rules!" types almost inevitably end up actually focusing on.

But if you decide you WANT social abilities to really matter then you NEED mechanics that do more than deliberately restrict themselves to admitted useless quibbles like minor haggling and similar bullshit. Your solution of just having a chat with the GM and seeing how he decides it turns out is not particularly good if you want Kick Ass Social guy to be a thing you can be that matters, or if you want social encounters to even matter.

It amazes me that the RC argument from years ago of "I want to have games that care about seducing the Queen, and the way I support that is to remove all rules and demand the hairy man player attempt to chat up the hairy man GM because THAT'S how you make socially focused RPGs!" remains well, a staggeringly stupid undead corpse that will never die.

PS...

, unless I have a specific PC in mind whom I want to inflict that NPC upon for story purposes.

... and as a largely irrelevant aside, that doesn't sound like especially savory GMing...

[tenuki]

So in short form. You don't actually use social mechanics, you use fairy tea party, you do not in fact have/support social actions as interesting, elaborate and powerful as regular combat so your invocation of the "that would be like making elaborate normal combat into one single roll!" quote is... odd... because it bears no resemblance to your preferred social mechanics.

You're right in that I don't use a detailed social mechanic. Believe me, I've tried it, but I don't think there could be any hard and fast social system that works for me.

A simple system with one scale ranging from sworn enemy to fanboy makes for bland characters. If you increase the complexity, the dice-rolling and tracking of parameters takes the spontaneity out of the actual in-character action -- while still not making for very believable NPCs.

It's fine if you go super slow-mo in combat situations (like a couple of minutes for a 10-second combat turn), but the same thing sucks hard when people talk in character. I'd rather just have a few guidelines and standard modifiers than interrupt a spirited discussion between PCs and NPCs with mechanics all the time.

It amazes me that the RC argument from years ago of "I want to have games that care about seducing the Queen, and the way I support that is to remove all rules and demand the hairy man player attempt to chat up the hairy man GM because THAT'S how you make socially focused RPGs!" remains well, a staggeringly stupid undead corpse that will never die.

If seducing the Queen is distinguishable from combat only by the fact that it uses different stats, I might as well not bother. The main ingredient for interesting social interaction in an RPG isn't mechanics. It's the players' and MC's maturity, their ability to create a character with a personality, genuine motivations and the sort of weaknesses that make great protagonists believable. If your idea of character development is to look at a chart with the prices of magic items between dungeons, you'd probably not feel at home with my group.

Also, I don't like pigeonholing PCs into categories like "killing machine", "spell artillery", "ultra-stealth murderer" or your "kick-ass social guy". When your characters are more balanced (each with their specialties of course, but nowhere near like the herd of one-trick ponies that D&D enforces), it's much easier to spread the love around, and the fighter gets something meaningful to do when there isn't a combat for a session or three.

PS...

, unless I have a specific PC in mind whom I want to inflict that NPC upon for story purposes.

... and as a largely irrelevant aside, that doesn't sound like especially savory GMing...

You see, when I said 'inflict the NPC on a specific PC', I meant giving the PC the limelight. I do it to ensure everybody gets their share in the story. What's so unsavory about that?

[PhoneLobster]

You're right in that I don't use a detailed social mechanic.

Please. Lets be clear. it's NOT just "not detailed" you don't use real formal mechanics AT ALL you use FAIRY TEA PARTY. That's fine but do NOT dress that up and pretend it's a "less detailed formal mechanic".

Believe me, I've tried it, but I don't think there could be any hard and fast social system that works for me.

And I'm sure your social "mechanic" where you make exactly as many rolls as YOU desire, with the exact modifiers YOU desire, of the exact skill checks YOU desire to give the exact outcomes YOU desire is a "mechanic" that YOU find very satisfying.

And in that case you should extend this methodology to the rest of your game and play pure rules light and abolish formal rules from regular combat as well.

OR you could THINK for a second. Why DON'T people do that for the rest of the game? And the reason is simple, because your social mechanic is very satisfying to... YOU... and ONLY YOU.

Increased formalization of rules exists to create FAIRNESS and interactivity for the OTHER PLAYERS, interactivity OTHER than simply begging YOU to decide that what YOU want is something they want.

And if you had one ounce of imagination I'm sure you could come up with SOME social mechanic. But since you can't even handle...

A simple system with one scale ranging from sworn enemy to fanboy makes for bland characters.

... basic character motivation without declaring "bland character" disease to be inflicting your feeble imagination that isn't going to happen.

Seriously though EXPLAIN this LUDICROUS claim. How does a broad and sweeping motivation like "This character is neutral in attitude towards that character" in ANY way restrict or "blandify" a character? This stops him from having a hobby building model trains how?

The whole POINT of broad sweeping motivations means that they leave a great deal of openings to further define characters and actions.

If you increase the complexity, the dice-rolling and tracking of parameters takes the spontaneity out of the actual in-character action -- while still not making for very believable NPCs.

Okay lets make this clear here.

You have poorly defined spontaneity, the influence of randomization and the actions of players OTHER than YOU are NOT attacks on "spontaneity" indeed they are good ways to INCREASE spontaneity as they take SOME portion of control out of your Gygaxian domination.

And the same goes for believability. Again your "mechanic" makes characters which I imagine YOU find incredibly believable since YOU define every damn thing about them. And again by giving formalized influences to OTHER PLAYERS we increase THEIR investment in your characters, we allow THEM to "Believe" they have the ability to influence events. WITHOUT formalization the ONLY player at the table who has true "Belief" in the characters is YOU.

It's fine if you go super slow-mo in combat situations (like a couple of minutes for a 10-second combat turn), but the same thing sucks hard when people talk in character.

You just started talking to me about this by claiming you demanded that social mechanics be complex like combat and how dare we "reduce it to one roll".

NOW you tell us basically "Fuck combat I don't want social mechanics to be like combat, all that fucking rolling, lets reduce it, hm... maybe even to one roll that doesn't even matter..."

You have NO CONSISTENCY here. Which makes me suspect that when you dominate your social "minigame" of fairy tea party your rulings are arbitrary contradictory and not especially predictable or pleasant.

If seducing the Queen is distinguishable from combat only by the fact that it uses different stats, I might as well not bother. The main ingredient for interesting social interaction in an RPG isn't mechanics. It's the players' and MC's maturity, their ability to create a character with a personality, genuine motivations and the sort of weaknesses that make great protagonists believable.

Ladies and gentlemen! The stupidest non-argument EVER. "If there are mechanics I don't like it for unstated reasons! You know whats cool MY judgment of your amateur theatrics! THAT is awesome!"... "WHY ARE YOU LAUGHING?"

If your idea of character development is to look at a chart with the prices of magic items between dungeons, you'd probably not feel at home with my group.

Oh my is that a largely irrelevant "I'm a real role player you filthy roll player!" basketweaver type jab. Niiiice. Really lends you the air of credibility.

Also, I don't like pigeonholing PCs into categories like "killing machine", "spell artillery", "ultra-stealth murderer" or your "kick-ass social guy". When your characters are more balanced (each with their specialties of course, but nowhere near like the herd of one-trick ponies that D&D enforces), it's much easier to spread the love around, and the fighter gets something meaningful to do when there isn't a combat for a session or three.

This doesn't even make sense, especially with all the prevaricating. Look it's simple. Characters are defined by what they can do by the abilities on their character sheet. If social abilities are NOT a meaningful formal ability on their character sheet, and in your world they are NOT then when people describe what their character does they will for the most part describe it with the OTHER abilities, which ARE going to be "Killing Machine" because that is all you left them you ass.

You have literally taken away the ability of a player to say "My character is a master liar" the moment you don't have a skill called "Master Liar" that does something related to lying.

[RobG]

Has anyone used Rich Burlew's optional Diplomacy rules?

They have a (fixable) big hole in them but they do stand the chance of at least killing this arguement.

[tenuki]

PL, it's obvious that we shouldn't be in the same group. I totally understand what you're saying because I used to be on your side of the fence opinion-wise; I just happened to like the people on the other side a lot better. (Mostly because they use fewer capital letters, but there are numerous lesser benefits.)

As to social abilities being meaningless without support by a rigid mechanic, that's crap, they're just not very well defined and require careful attention on part of the MC.

Besides, any supposedly solid mechanic becomes mushy when applied to social situations. Even for a seemingly straightforward skill such as lying, when do you call for a roll? Per statement? Then what's your definition of a statement? A sentence? With or without clauses? Are you allowed to use the word "and", or does that make it two statements? Do you really want rules that have the answer to all these questions buried in a footnote somewhere? Surely that would leave no room for argument.

[MGuy]

At my table you give me your entire "lie" and I make you roll it once. I just need to know the entirety of your input then I set the DC/bonus/whatever based on what the hardest to believe lie within your statement is. Its that simple. No need to get too complex. Maybe have some modifiers depending on how complex you want the Check to be.

[PhoneLobster]

PL, it's obvious that we shouldn't be in the same group.

Quick important questions I want answers to.

1) Do you think basket weaver condescension about "you are apparently a filthy roll player and don't belong in my group because you might dare to question my apparently sweeping and frequent fairy tea party judgement calls" is a valid argument? Do you think it does anything in fact other than to demonstrate and strengthen my claim that fairy tea party of any major frequency or importance is counterproductive to good game play?

2) If Fairy Tea party is so awesome for your elaborate social mechanics you yourself have compared to be so important that their REMOVING your pure fairy tea party would be the same as turning regular combat into a single roll... then why aren't you using your super awesome infinitely flexible fairy tea party for regular combat? No really if it's so damn good why not?.

3) Read this quote carefully.

As to social abilities being meaningless without support by a rigid mechanic, that's crap, they're just not very well defined and require careful attention on part of the MC.

Are you not in fact aware how the second part of that quote actually undermines the claim in the first part... by being fucking meaningless?

[tenuki]

PL, it's obvious that we shouldn't be in the same group.

Quick important questions I want answers to.

Neither quick nor important, but all right. If it's answers you crave, answers you shall have. Last post for me debating you though, I've got a life to live.

1) Play whatever works for you. I've done it your way, I got bored, now I'm doing it a different way. Please also note that I didn't say "you don't belong in my group, filthy rollplayer". I said "we shouldn't be in the same group", and if you don't see why that should be so, then I'm past helping you.

2) I never said what you allege I did. My point was about scale. "Diplo the king into starting war with the elves" -- one roll, sweeping consequences for the entire campaign world. Compare that to the scale on which any combat roll is effective. Notice a difference? "Why do you use a more than one roll to resolve a combat?" was a rhetorical question intended to point out that difference in scale, not a serious suggestion. Got it now?

The argument is that if you can routinely turn the policy of kingdoms in one roll while naturally using hundreds of rolls to resolve even a small-scale combat, your clamoring for absolute consistency in all things rules has a faintly ridiculous smell to it.

As for your question why I don't use MTP for combat: Many RPGs do a pretty decent job modeling combat with more or less hard rules. All RPGs suck at modeling people's motivations with hard rules, because people's motivations are impossible to break down into a set of parameters. Ask your therapist if you don't want to take my word for it.

So what your question essentially comes down to is "why is this idiot keeping the baby when he's pouring out the bathwater?"

3)

Read this quote carefully.

As to social abilities being meaningless without support by a rigid mechanic, that's crap, they're just not very well defined and require careful attention on part of the MC.

Are you not in fact aware how the second part of that quote actually undermines the claim in the first part... by being fucking meaningless?

A rules-light game places more responsibility in the hands of the MC, but it can definitely be done. Of course, if your MC is the power-tripping sort, you're out of luck. If your MC can only be made to apply social attributes (or any of your character's abilities) if you clobber him over the head with the rule book opened to the relevant page, you're out of luck.

But why would an experienced gamer put up with such an MC in the first place? And do you really think that desperately clinging to a ruleset the size of the Library of Congress could save your game from a hostile or incompetent MC?

Finally, I don't see why you're taking such an aggressive, doctrinal stance. Does the existence of alternative ways of playing an RPG make you unhappy somehow?

[PhoneLobster]

So your entire post boils down to claiming you didn't say what I said you said, followed by you saying what I said you said. And then you making further "role play vs roll player" accusations about me hating on or not understanding your "style".

Well. I think I can safely say you are a monumentally stupid person, and I think I can safely say you've pretty much proven everything bad I've said about your argument for me.

[Swordslinger]

But why would an experienced gamer put up with such an MC in the first place? And do you really think that desperately clinging to a ruleset the size of the Library of Congress could save your game from a hostile or incompetent MC?

Finally, I don't see why you're taking such an aggressive, doctrinal stance. Does the existence of alternative ways of playing an RPG make you unhappy somehow?

Lobster is of the mindset that all DMs are innately out to fuck him over and the only way to protect himself is to put all kinds of restrictions, sanctions and red tape in the way of the DM to prevent him from abusing his power.

My guess is the dude had a bad experience with some power tripping DMs and now assumes that anyone who sits on that side of the DM screen is automatically his enemy.

[PhoneLobster]

Lobster is of the mindset that all DMs are innately out to fuck him over and the only way to protect himself is to put all kinds of restrictions, sanctions and red tape in the way of the DM to prevent him from abusing his power.

Explain to me what formal rules are and why we don't just use Fairy Tea party for EVERYTHING.

I dare you.

[Roog]

One reason for using tactical rules for some game situations (e.g. combat) and Fairy Tea party for other situations (e.g. social), is that tactical rules and Fairy Tea party require different skills from the players.

It could be desirable for a variety of player skills to be useful for in-game success, and the skills required to excel at both tactical games and Fairy Tea party may be skills that you want to include and encourage in the game.

[PhoneLobster]

Roog, I dared Swordslinger to put up or shut up his own nonsense, not you.

But whatever, I can talk about your nonsense.

Fairy Tea party has benefits and reasons for being used. But your "skills" argument falls down on first principles because Fairy Tea Party rewards only ONE skill and that is sucking up to the GM.

That is IT. Begging the GM to give you what you want. Being good at that is the "skill" fairy tea party rewards. You can dress it up with "but what makes the GM agree with you is his judgement of your amateur theatrics!" or whatever bullshit angle you like but that's effectively meaningless because ALL of it boils down to pure Mother May I and frankly your objective or even subjective Amateur theatrics skills mean NOTHING in the face of the pure whims of the GM and who is or is not sucking his cock.

There is almost no "skill" involved unless "being the GMs Girlfriend" is a "skill" you are seriously intending to have an entire major focus of game play revolve around.

So you need to try again. Because when you tried to define Formal Mechanics and why you use them, or not, you got it flat out wrong.

Edit: Here is a hint. Fairy Tea Party has NO relevance to ANY genuine player "skills" at all, we commonly use it for bits and pieces to do with certain direct costs and benefits it has...

[Roog]

Fairy Tea party has benefits and reasons for being used. But your "skills" argument falls down on first principles because Fairy Tea Party rewards only ONE skill and that is sucking up to the GM.

That is IT. Begging the GM to give you what you want. Being good at that is the "skill" fairy tea party rewards. You can dress it up with "but what makes the GM agree with you is his judgement of your amateur theatrics!" or whatever bullshit angle you like but that's effectively meaningless because ALL of it boils down to pure Mother May I and frankly your objective or even subjective Amateur theatrics skills mean NOTHING in the face of the pure whims of the GM and who is or is not sucking his cock.

Sucking peoples' cocks is not the only way to get them to agree with you.

As you said on another thread

TYou totally can convince people of stuff. If you think otherwise you are trying to convince people of really stupid stuff. And I mean REALLY stupid, because people get convinced that giant invisible sky fairies lovingly care about their every move all the time so your arguments must be extra crap!

Fairy Tea party definitely requires persuading the GM, but there are plenty of ways to persuade someone without sucking their cock.

So you need to try again. Because when you tried to define Formal Mechanics and why you use them, or not, you got it flat out wrong.

Thats interesting, as I did not try to define formal mechanics, or to define why you use them.

As I am not Swordslinger, I was choosing to respond to the 2nd part of the question, as it has come up before in the thread.

In that context, the response was that both formal rules and Fairy Tea party may require players skills that the other does not require, so eliminating either from the game may remove desired game elements.

You may want those player skills removed from game, that does not mean that there are not other players who value their inclusion.

[PhoneLobster]

Sucking peoples' cocks is not the only way to get them to agree with you.

I see so you intend to turn the game into an argument and actually think that is going to be a good thing BEFORE we even consider that all the people demanding unrestricted GM power are Gygaxian morons who respond to player dissent with "Rocks fall you all die"?

Suffice it to say this though. "Sucking the GMs Cock" is a sufficient approximation of the "skill set" of "begging the GM for stuff you want to happen". I don't care if you attempt to "reason" with the GM or provide actual literal cock sucking services. The ONLY skill applied here is how good you are at manipulating the GM. I don't care if you say "but you could CONVINCE HIM!" that is exactly what begging the GM to help you out IS. And this is NOT a measure of whether you SHOULD succeed in any game endevour, this is NOT a measure of your theatrical skills, this is NOT even a measure of the validity of your "argument" as surely had you READ my entire post about winning arguments you might have noted the rather key point that people around the world are frequently convinced of really fucking stupid shit.

Playing the "game" of asking the GM for stuff then begging, cajoling, arguing and cock sucking until he gives it to you measures NO skills that we WANT to measure, it does nothing particularly good for the game and does a number of notably bad things to the game.

It is in actual fact a major DISADVANTAGE of using Fairy Tea Party that it revolves largely around a bunch of euphemisms for sucking the GMs cock in the hope that he will agree with your request regardless of it being reasonable, well delivered, or good for the actual game.

Thats interesting, as I did not try to define formal mechanics, or to define why you use them.
...
One reason for using tactical rules for some game situations ... is that tactical rules and Fairy Tea party require different skills from the players.

Hm. You can't keep track of your own statements and actively deny even attempting to make an actual relevant argument. This will end well.

[Roog]

Thats interesting, as I did not try to define formal mechanics, or to define why you use them.
...
One reason for using tactical rules for some game situations ... is that tactical rules and Fairy Tea party require different skills from the players.

Hm. You can't keep track of your own statements and actively deny even attempting to make an actual relevant argument. This will end well.

I gave an example of one reason why some people would want both. That is definitely not a definition of either formal mechanics or Fairy Tea Party.

As to whether it is a definition of why you would use them; an example is not a definition. I gave a single reason why you may want to include them, and that falls far short of what would be required for a definition.


I could try to define why you would want to use either of them, but I don't think that would be practical. A definition of Why you would want to use X would not answer the question "Why would you (or anyone else) want to use X?" That would be better answered with a list of reasons than a definition.

[Swordslinger]

Explain to me what formal rules are and why we don't just use Fairy Tea party for EVERYTHING.

Rules are generally so people can take actions and have some idea of what the outcomes will be and to speed up play. Also, rules can make the game more fun in areas like combat.

Rules do not exist to create some kind of balance of power between player and DM. It's already established that the DM can win if he wants. Making rules to straitjacket him will at best just force him to think of another way to dick you over.

As for why you don't use magic tea party for everything, it's mostly to create a balance between PCs and to create a more tactical feel to the game. There's no reason you can't do MTP for everything, and in fact some games do do that and they can work.

[Roog]

The ONLY skill applied here is how good you are at manipulating the GM. I don't care if you say "but you could CONVINCE HIM!" that is exactly what begging the GM to help you out IS. And this is NOT a measure of whether you SHOULD succeed in any game endevour, this is NOT a measure of your theatrical skills, this is NOT even a measure of the validity of your "argument" as surely had you READ my entire post about winning arguments you might have noted the rather key point that people around the world are frequently convinced of really fucking stupid shit.

So, people are frequently convinced of really fucking stupid shit, and the success of you argument is not a a measure of the validity of your "argument". Does that mean I might persuade you?

So what skills do you think should be rewarded?

[PhoneLobster]

So amazingly we move on to Swordslinger for some actual meaningful content if anyone can believe it...

Rules are generally so people can take actions and have some idea of what the outcomes will be and to speed up play.

Damn! going so well but then before the end of your first sentence you hit a major stumbling block. Unfortunately no, rules do NOT speed up play, they actually objectively slow down game play. That is in fact a COST of adding each and every rule we include.

Also, rules can make the game more fun in areas like combat.

You REALLY need to explore the "Why?" of this statement. As it stands while largely correct it tells us nothing at all, and suggests you CLEARLY need more rules in your social combat since they "make fun" in some undefined generic manner.

Rules do not exist to create some kind of balance of power between player and DM.

BZZZT!!! And right here you are in WTF territory. Rules exist EXACTLY for this purpose. Among others, but DEFINITELY this is in the top 10, the top five, the top three it might even be THE top reason on the list of reasons for having rules.

If you INDEED believe your claim that rules are NOT for EXACTLY the purpose of providing fairness in the various players powers over the game you are just... SO FUCKING INSANE!

I mean I can basically just make you a laughing stock by putting that line of yours in my sig. It's about time I did that...

There's no reason you can't do MTP for everything, and in fact some games do do that and they can work.

You say that like you don't know I have a complete Rules Lite system posted on this site. Like all rules lite systems it has it's narrow appeals and usefulness.

MTP exists, it does stuff, surprisingly to you we all knew that and mentioned it numerous times, and so what, I don't care, why don't YOU use MTP for EVERYTHING in ALL your games, WHY do you use ANY formal mechanics given your arguments are ALL so broadly stupid that they actually claim that MTP is in all ways superior to formal mechanics in all arenas?


... but seriously I'm putting that "rules don't do that!" in my sig, that is fucking comedy gold.