De canistro textrinum

[Lago PARANOIA]

I would not consider that "done well". At least, not well enough that I'd be willing to shell out cash for it.

The point is that it's never going to be done well on its own merits because what you're basically asking for is a list of common sense platitudes. It's like asking for the best gourmet restaurant that serves shit sandwiches. Some shit sandwiches will taste worse than others. And some restaurants will even provide ancillary dining experiences great enough to turn the experience into a net positive. But it doesn't matter how much effort the chefs put into the product or how much you're willing to pay, you're inherently going to hit a hard ceiling on how good the product will be.

[Avoraciopoctules]

All it needs to be is reasonably good advice written in a way that makes you laugh and want to show it to your friends. That really isn't all that much to ask for.

Vornheim is an example of a pretty well done rpg advice book.
EDIT: well, it might be more accurate to call it an idea book, I suppose.

[Aryxbez]

Can we resume the discussion now? Remember, the point is:

Out of rule moments are a fun and expected part of RPGs, but it's very hard to talk about them as you talk about the codified parts. How should RPG books deal with this, to avoid creating more people with the false idea that "MTP = you just lost the game"?

Sure, good DMing advice I think always a good idea, especially when you accomodate it with the style of the game in question. PARANOIA and Shadowrun for example, likely to have some different advice to give on their respective style of game. Also that, the RPG book admits to those moments when Fiat will come up, and telling the DM the variety of ways that would be appropriate to go about it. If you have good rules to cover wide bit of situations, like a large list of example DC's, and clearly noting what level of capability these DC's fall into. So you don't have DM's thinking Kicking Down DC 15 wooden door, now steel, should therefore be 30! if that's say, the realm of DC's which be inappropriate, like say situations which characters are cutting jet planes,Solid stone, and T-rex's in half (not necessarily all at once).

Well there it is. Everyone stop your conversations, this discussion is over. LM hasn't experienced it, so it must not be possible.

I mustl've missed the post that would indicate that stance on Lord Mistborn's part, but I don't think that is what she's saying at all. Moreso that, rules have structure in their rationale, people by default are irrational creatures, so when we play a game expecting consistency, relying on a source of irrationality is much more likely to bring unsatisfying experiences than not. They don't even have to be "bad" DM's to be making these bad calls, once go away from the game's structure, some will just be unsure how to handle it, especially since most people don't have system mastery of the game (and shouldn't "expect" them to). Once you get people fueling on fiat, they'll be inserting their own preferences in the game, that will likely clash with the spirit of the game, and its rules.

The point is that it's never going to be done well on its own merits because what you're basically asking for is a list of common sense platitudes.

Even "common sense platitudes" will go a long way to bringing people new to the game, in turn with the vision of the RPG's style, well as what kind of experience they should be delivering. Why, I even have a friend who runs a Pathfinder game terribly, making an entire decade worth of DMing mistakes (DM's girlfriend, fiat auto-lose fights,you name it), right down to disliking the concept of players having options. Having this list, quickly and clearly stated, would possibly bring these mistakes to his attention, and thus his DMing wouldn't have to suffer for it.

[nockermensch]

The way I see, this is another incentive to treat these moments better. My reading of RPG books is that they have been ignoring how to effectively deal with out of rules moments for decades, with the implicit understanding that the MCs would "get" what rule 0 means. The result of this negligence is also a lot of jarring and frustrating moments.

edit fixed quotes

I can't grade your post like this, Mistborn. I'm afraid you cheated and just copied your answers. So show your work or you'll fail yet another thread. Demonstrate with your own thoughts why MTP is always bad. And remember: 1) "Because I hate it" isn't a reason, it's circular reasoning; 2) "Because I hate you" also isn't, it's ad hominem.

Now, regarding the actual criticism so far:

Lago, I find the "official treatment" on how to deal with the out of the rules side of the game very lacking so far. To be sincere, I never cared much about this, but after the recent trolling incident I'm now worried that this very lack of support causes people to treat this part of the game poorly, which leads to bad experiences. I don't know if you're right with the "reprinting" thing but certainly this is the impression I always got from reading those sessions. It seems they feel free to change all the rules at each new edition, but the "how to DM" chapters seem to be put together by an intern without a second thought.

So, how do you think the outside the rules parts should be dealt with in a game like D&D?

[fectin]

Ignoring the rules because you plot/character/NPC is a beautiful butterfly needs to die in a fire.

Why?

Seriously, because you've asserted this without evidence or support several times. Here's a quick test case: if you're in a large scale battle, should the DM track initiatives for thousands of foot soldiers? How about HP, attack rolls, damage, etc? If you say yes, you're an idiot. If no, you're agreeing that asspulls to override the rules are sometimes justified, and need a new litmus test.

[Maj]

Sure, good DMing advice I think always a good idea, especially when you accomodate it with the style of the game in question.

I think there might be a bit of the problem peeking through here.

Keeping in mind that 3.E was my first real introduction to D&D, it's been my experience that there's a big split in the way people play. I've seen remnants of the Gygaxian gank-the-party mentality where it's the DM versus the players, and it's those games where the rules tend to be wielded like a shield against the harmful intent of the DM. In games where the DM is on the same side as the players, the rules tend to be used as a reference by both. Those times when the game situations aren't covered by the rules tend to be a disaster in the former, and pretty cool in the latter.

Anything in the rule book (because that makes it a rule, right?) that clearly states that the DM's job isn't fucking over the players, and rather working with them, should be highly encouraged. The idea that the game is the DM's fun versus the players' fun needs to die.

[Username17]

Ignoring the rules because you plot/character/NPC is a beautiful butterfly needs to die in a fire.

Why?

Seriously, because you've asserted this without evidence or support several times. Here's a quick test case: if you're in a large scale battle, should the DM track initiatives for thousands of foot soldiers? How about HP, attack rolls, damage, etc? If you say yes, you're an idiot. If no, you're agreeing that asspulls to override the rules are sometimes justified, and need a new litmus test.

I think Mistborn has this part of the argument in the fucking bag and you're picking at irrelevant tangents. Nockermensch's stated position (the one that Mistborn stands in opposition to) is that you should roll the dice until you get a result you don't like, and then retcon that result away and then keep rolling dice like you hadn't just invalidated the entire exercise in dice rolling by fudging the results.

To use your mass battle example: Nockermensch actually supports rolling all those initiative and attack rolls and then ignoring all the attack roll results that hurt the protagonist PC. The entire die rolling exercise is a giant waste of time because the results are foregone. It would be better to just not pretend you were you using the D&D system in the first place and skip the completely meaningless "Heads I win, Tails I pretend we got a Heads" timesink.

-Username17

[quanta]

Nockermensch's stated position (the one that Mistborn stands in opposition to) is that you should roll the dice until you get a result you don't like, and then retcon that result away and then keep rolling dice like you hadn't just invalidated the entire exercise in dice rolling by fudging the results.

I have no fucking clue where you're getting this from nockermensch's posts. Enlighten me.

[Avoraciopoctules]

If mass battle is an actual talking point....

I've got a probable mass battle scenario coming up pretty soon in one of my games. The way it's going to work, the PCs want to take a strategic point. To do so, they need tiny men. So they need to make local alliances that will back them up.

If they enter the battle against a few hundred soldiers, a few dozen knights, and several wizards with the following allies:
- A few dozen ettercaps
- A hundred elven soldiers, with a handful of CR 4-5 fey backing them up
- Several wizards
- A few dozen dwarven heavy infantry
- Several CR 6 dolgaunt assassins, with a few dozen CR 1 dolgrim light infantry

I can't think of much better to do than give them a few MTP strategical decisions to make and a few points where they can jump in and have combat encounters on a maneagable scale that could tip the balance of the overall battle in their favor.

I would like it if there was a resource that gave me ideas and warned me of common pitfalls for the MTP strategy component. It could save me some work and might make for a more entertaining experience for all.

[nockermensch]

To use your mass battle example: Nockermensch actually supports rolling all those initiative and attack rolls and then ignoring all the attack roll results that hurt the protagonist PC. The entire die rolling exercise is a giant waste of time because the results are foregone. It would be better to just not pretend you were you using the D&D system in the first place and skip the completely meaningless "Heads I win, Tails I pretend we got a Heads" timesink.

Whoa, wtf?

[Avoraciopoctules]

It does sound like kind of a stretch compared to what I remember of your posts.

How would you actually go about handling the role of the PCs in a mass combat, Nockermensch?

[Fuchs]

Quotes please for that, Frank.

[nockermensch]

It does sound like kind of a stretch compared to what I remember of your posts.

How would you actually go about handling the role of the PCs in a mass combat, Nockermensch?

First thing, I go with the old standard of having the mass combat happen in the background while the PCs have to deal with a small series of encounters with the elite enemy troops.

Sometimes, the mass battle conclusion is already foregone for story reasons, and in these cases unless a PC does something cool and unexpected that somehow changes the battle's end I don't even bother rolling. Usually after each PC encounter ends I update them on the battle's progress and keep both the PCs fights and the main battle more or less synchronized. If the PCs side is fated to win, they'll finish their last encounter as the remains of the enemy army routs, and if their side is fated to lose they can find themselves having to run after the last group that came after them is defeated.

Sometimes the battle can really go either way or the PCs are helping with the planning (and then it'd suck to say that they outright lose) and then I roll like this:

First I eyeball each side and give it a base strength. I suppose you could use any of the mass combat systems here to figure the strengths of each side. Then I add modifiers to represent terrain, strategy and whatever else seems significant. (the base rule I use to decide how much a modifier is worth is "how cool would this be in an action movie/anime?" You're encouraged to find a rule that works for you)

Then during the battle I make some opposed rolls between the armies's strengths and after each roll I tell the players how the battle is favoring one or other side ("your elven allies are being harassed by the knights and seem about to rout", or something). Ideally, if the PCs' side loses the opposed roll, they should still have some means to interfere and tilt the scale back to their side. What's exactly needed varies. I already used timed encounters "You have three rounds to kill a commander before it's too late to save your infantry!", described situations that called for the use of limited items or for the party to divide itself, or some other thing that will create tension for the PCs. If the PCs win this challenge, their side's loss becomes a tie or a win (exactly which one depending on how boss they were).

The PCs usually still have encounters going after them anyway, so forcing the battle back to their side is always something risky to do. (riskier than merely being in the battle, I mean)

The final results are eye-balled by how the opposed rolls went. In an example with 3 rolls: 3-0 = Complete victory, your side suffered small losses and the other side is mostly anihilated. 2-1 = Victory, but your side suffered some loses. Ties (opposed rolls can tie) means inconclusive battles.

Stuff like the arrival of reinforcements, betrayals and the such can modify an army strength during the battle. Sometimes the PCs are powerful or daring enough to bypass the entire army thing and go right for the enemy general. Then it's mostly a normal encounter (probably with constant reinforcements) and if they kill the guy they win "the battle" right there. There's probably things I'm forgetting, but the base I used for running big battles in the past is pretty much this.

[Avoraciopoctules]

Huh. Interesting. I haven't really approached things like that in the past, but I can see the appeal. Do you ever do games where the PCs are currying favor with various factions in a measurable way, which then leads in to the strength of sides when the armies of tiny men are busted out?

I'm thinking of giving the PCs a chart summarizing the way different factions feel about each other, like so:

	Ferazi	Fey	Dwarves	Ettercaps
Ferazi	-	Neutral	Unfriendly	Enemies
Fey	Neutral	-	Neutral	Neutral
Dwarves	Unfriendly	Neutral	-	Friendly
Ettercaps	Enemies	Unfriendly	Friendly	-

Then the PCs have a goal and need to build up the support necessary to achieve it. Is it worth tracking something as detailed as "Loyalty Points" for each faction, or do you think something simpler would generally be better?

[tussock]

This is why I'm opposed to MTP because the DM is the final arbiter in that scenario and I've never seen that not turn the DM into a total jackass. I have never in my life experienced a moment where throwing the rules out the window has been anything but tiresome and resentment causing.

So, you found a rule that let you get infinite wishes and win everything at level 6 and the DM told you not to be a dick and you were BUTTHURT. Every time. Even though that's what always happens. Because you have a learning disability.

The special kids can play D&D too, it's cool. But D&D is a game where you win by having fun creating cool stories with your gaming friends. You can't worry too much about the rules along the way, because the infinite possibility space prevents anyone writing complete rules for it. Even 4e combats with their bullshit 100' range limits on everything ever.

[Mistborn]

So, you found a rule that let you get infinite wishes and win everything at level 6 and the DM told you not to be a dick and you were BUTTHURT. Every time. Even though that's what always happens. Because you have a learning disability.

The special kids can play D&D too, it's cool. But D&D is a game where you win by having fun creating cool stories with your gaming friends. You can't worry too much about the rules along the way, because the infinite possibility space prevents anyone writing complete rules for it. Even 4e combats with their bullshit 100' range limits on everything ever.

Given how much you've failed at reading comprehension I think you're the one with a learning disability. Nice strawman though.

So one more time for those of you who are developmentally challenged. Houserules =/= MTP. Houserules are mods to the rules that can be spelled out before the game begins and MTP is ignoring the rules outright. This is not rocket surgery people.

There are some houserules that are prevalent enough that they are assumed for all games either spelled out or as an assumed as part of the social contract. Monks are in fact proficient with their unarmed strike and Wish loops do not happen. In fact it's only on then Den that anyone seriously assumes that PC are getting any wishes without spending an 9 and 5000 xp.

As for the mass combat rules there really aren't any in 3.5 that I know of. Thus if you are DMing and there is going to be mass combat it behooves you to write some mass combat rules, explain them to your players and, not use this as an excuse for MTP.

[Stubbazubba]

Okay, so why wasn't it a problem? If it's so not a problem, why not increase the amount of MTP?

IME, because the circumstances that led to a die roll being fudged were not worth such a high consequence. The dramatic tension wasn't high enough to warrant a character death, for example. At that point, someone gets a complicating injury which is not easily cured, so that there are consequences, but there's no need to kill someone off just because the dice said so when you're only on the second encounter and are here to role-play a campaign, not play a wargame. In a high stakes scenario, then PC death would understandably be on the table, but in a dramatically low-stakes scenario, it should not. It doesn't make sense for the cost of any given loss to always be the same - very high, even ultimate - when the benefit thereof is wildly variable.

Why not do more? Because we want to have excitement and tension when we play the game, so we stick to the rules as often as possible, and only adjust the outcomes when they are inappropriate given the situation, and when the adjustment is acceptable to everyone at the table. The rules by-and-large work, there are just edge cases where a PC death is random and counter to the tone of the campaign, and thus detrimental to the play experience. Maybe I just play with agreeable people and need to play some "real campaigns" where someone throws a fit when a roll is fudged, though?

[Lago PARANOIA]

IME, because the circumstances that led to a die roll being fudged were not worth such a high consequence. The dramatic tension wasn't high enough to warrant a character death, for example. At that point, someone gets a complicating injury which is not easily cured, so that there are consequences, but there's no need to kill someone off just because the dice said so when you're only on the second encounter and are here to role-play a campaign, not play a wargame. In a high stakes scenario, then PC death would understandably be on the table, but in a dramatically low-stakes scenario, it should not. It doesn't make sense for the cost of any given loss to always be the same - very high, even ultimate - when the benefit thereof is wildly variable.

Unless the DM stated ahead of time that he was going to retcon any deaths not sufficiently dramatic and everyone agreed to that, they and all of the players at the table can go fuck themselves.

I can put up with a lot of things in a TTRPG, but that right there is a 'give the group one chance to come to their senses. If they state the retcon stands, then finish up the game quietly, and drop out of all future engagements' moments. Personally, I'd like to make it a 'walk from the table then and there' but I know how defensive and sensitive people get when confronted on their bullshit.

Because we want to have excitement and tension when we play the game, so we stick to the rules as often as possible, and only adjust the outcomes when they are inappropriate given the situation, and when the adjustment is acceptable to everyone at the table.

If you're doing that to have the game be more exciting then you're an idiot. You're an idiot because you want something that's obviously contradictory.

[Fuchs]

Lago, there are also moments when people realize that their character is gone, all the effort of making it gone, when they pack up and leave.

I'd bet that the general understanding in many if not most groups - unspoken, but understood - is that you don't lose characters in trivial encounters.

[Mistborn]

Lago, there are also moments when people realize that their character is gone, all the effort of making it gone, when they pack up and leave.

I'd bet that the general understanding in many if not most groups - unspoken, but understood - is that you don't lose characters in trivial encounters.

Perhaps D&D isn't for them then because D&D is a game where PCs can and do die. Now how much PCs die depends on what sort of encounters the players face and the players level of skill but regardless deaths can and do happen.

This the difference between a TTRPG and single author fiction. In single author fiction there can be and illusion of danger without any of the protagonists biting it. In a TTRPG if there is a meaningful chance for characters to die than bodies are going to hit the floor.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I'd bet that the general understanding in many if not most groups - unspoken, but understood - is that you don't lose characters in trivial encounters.

That's a pretty depressing and cynical statement.
Why the fuck wouldn't you just be honest about it and say that one of your caveats for playing in a game is that PC death is turned off except by unanimous vote?

The narcissism and mendacity it takes to spring the 'I know I agreed to rules that say that I should die in this instance, but could we just ignore that this one time? And also an unspecified amount of times in the future because they give me a sad' bombshell on a group boggles the mind. On reflection it doesn't, actually, because I've gamed with plenty of people who have this infantile mentality. And I do mean infantile. Giving someone an extra 200 dollars in Monopoly money when they should be kicked out of the game is what you do to pacify toddlers. Toddlers, man. Not grown-ass adults.

You know, the thing I make fun of grognards the most is that they want babying and guaranteed happy endings (in both the literal and vulgar slang sense) but are too neurotic to admit that this is what they want. So they engage in all sorts of pathological behavior to uphold their cognitive dissonance. And as the icing on the ass-shaped cake, they then pretend that this makes them all hardcore and rules-savvy and shit.

But apparently TGD ain't much better.

[nockermensch]

If you're doing that to have the game be more exciting then you're an idiot. You're an idiot because you want something that's obviously contradictory.

Except you know, it's not. There are at least two kinds of excitement derived from TTRPGs. There's the casino-like excitement on making bets based on hard chances and there's the reading-a-book-like excitement of not knowing exactly what will happen next, even if literaly tropes are obviously steering the story.

That the second excitement is a deal-breaker for you, Mistborn and Frank (at least) is duly noted. But I think the two kinds of fun can and should exist at the same time, possibly in varying proportions at each scene.

And you still didn't answer my question. How would you deal with the out of the rules part of the book? Ignore it? Copy-paste EGG's advice? If not, then what?

[nockermensch]

I'd bet that the general understanding in many if not most groups - unspoken, but understood - is that you don't lose characters in trivial encounters.

That's a pretty depressing and cynical statement. The narcissism and mendacity it takes to spring the 'by the way, I know the rules say that I/we should die in this instance, but could we just ignore that this and an unspecified amount of times in the future because it gives me a sad' bombshell on a group boggles the mind. It doesn't, actually, because I've gamed with plenty of people who have this infantile mentality.

Why the fuck wouldn't you just be honest about it and say that one of your caveats for playing in a game is that PC death is turned off except by unanimous vote?

You know, the thing I make fun of grognards the most is that they want babying and happy endings (in both the literal and vulgar slang sense) but are too neurotic to admit that this is what they want, so they engage in all sorts of pathological behavior to uphold their cognitive dissonance. But apparently TGD ain't much better.

Oh gods, the spirit of GC possessed Lago. Quick, call the exorcists.

[Lago PARANOIA]

There are at least two kinds of excitement derived from TTRPGs. There's the casino-like excitement on making bets based on hard chances and there's the reading-a-book-like excitement of not knowing exactly what will happen next, even if literaly tropes are obviously steering the story.

Bolded part mine. And yes, that is completely contradictory. If you've planned an outcome ahead of time and under no consequence will deviate from it then that literally makes it so that you will know more of what's going to happen. You've reduced the sample space of outcomes so you can predict outcomes with more certainty. That's what you will learn in the first WEEK of probability 101.

If you said that you wanted games to be more predictable and railroady, well, I'd strenuously disagree with that and tell you why. But I wouldn't think you're stupid.

But you can't cut off possible gameplay and story directions and while simultaneously claiming that it makes the story more exciting and unpredictable. That is a straight-up contradiction. It's such an obvious contradiction that I am forced to conclude that wanting it makes you stupid.

How would you deal with the out of the rules part of the book? Ignore it? Copy-paste EGG's advice? If not, then what?

As I alluded to earlier, it's a worthless question to answer as-is because it's based on a faulty premise. It's like asking 'how can we make the total discrete probability greater than 1' or 'how many beatings can we administer before employee morale goes up?'.

[Almaz]

ITT: People post about how someone else's social contract is invalid and wrong while failing to realize that their own social contract is held together by the very same nonsense and baling wire.

Lord Mistborn you are playing Magical Tea Party from the moment you sit down at the table and agree to play a game of Let's Pretend We're Murder Hobos. Nockermensch you are playing a game of hierarchically structured rules with strict expectations of power level from the moment you sit down with a second person to play this game.

You are both following the same set of rules, the fact that you get different results is the rules operate on different people in different ways. And I don't mean the D&D rules in case you're such a nitwit as to delude yourself into thinking those are at all relevant to the actual conversation.