Terrible advice from gamebooks

[Darth Rabbitt]

The 1st Edition D&D Dungeon Master's Guide essays on psionics and monster PCs suggesting you allow your players to have them with all the awesome and then send out increasingly difficult shit designed to kill them because how dare you want to play things that Gary Gygax doesn't like.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

I have the 1E DMG. You roll a random encounter when someone uses a psionic attack. Demogorgon is on it. I shit you not.

[Jefepato]

I have the 1E DMG. You roll a random encounter when someone uses a psionic attack. Demogorgon is on it. I shit you not.

Really?

Because that...doesn't sound like a good game. But it does sound like a good story to tell later.

[RadiantPhoenix]

Really?

Because that...doesn't sound like a good game. But it does sound like a good story to tell later.

"And then I made Demogorgon my robot..."

[Hey_I_Can_Chan]

I had to look that up, and there it is. First edition Dungeon Master's Guide, page 182.

"If you opt to include psionic powers... then certain random encounters will be with psionically-empowered creatures." Then it goes on to say that if the party's used psionics or psionic-like spells or items that duplicate psionic-like spells in the last turn, and a random encounter is rolled, there's a 25% chance its a psionic encounter. And, yeah, that Psionic Encounter Chart totally includes a 2% chance of a straight-up demon prince showing up because the DM said, "Yeah, go ahead and roll for psionics," when you were making characters and your wizard cast fucking feather fall 9 minutes ago.

Of course, it also says, after all that, "Roll until an appropriate encounter occurs, ignoring inappropriate results (or optionally considering it as no encounter). So, yeah, whatever.

[OgreBattle]

Where did "demons come out when you use psychic powers" come from?

I know that's a warhammer staple, but did WH get it from D&D?

[RadiantPhoenix]

It certainly sounds like something a totalitarian DM would have come up with.

[Username17]

Where did "demons come out when you use psychic powers" come from?

I know that's a warhammer staple, but did WH get it from D&D?

Warhammer Chaos is just Runequest Chaos. The "Beastmen" are literally just the Broo miniatures that Citadel made under the Runequest license until the license expired and then they kept selling them as "Beastmen". Slaves to Darkness came out in 1978, ten actual years after the 1st edition DMG and the original Runequest books were in print.

Games Workshop is the Paizo of Runequest.

-Username17

[Josh_Kablack]

The Count is oversimplifying. He's not wrong, using Psionics can bring Demogorgon on as your next fight, but it's crazier than that:

What page 182 (just past the mermaid titties) actually says is that if you use psionics, you should have psionic encounters, which is reasonable - or would be if Gygax hadn't written it.

Check for random encounters as normal, but if the player party has use psionic powers during the last turn, or spells resembling psionic powers during the last round, then the chance for psionic encounters will be 1 in 4 if an encounter is otherwise indicated. After checking for a random encounter, roll d4 to find out if the encounter is psionic. If the second table is positive, go to the PSIONIC ENCOUNTER TABLE and check thereon to find what creature is involved. The encounter otherwise occurs as normal, although certain creatures will not be detected by the party.

Then the list of "Spells Resembling Psionic Powers" includes such heavy-hitters as cure(any), detect (any), and feather fall

and the PSIONIC ENCOUNTER TABLE itself includes the results

...
25-26 Demon Prince*
27-28 Devil, Arch-*
....
...
*Dice for type or select.

So it's nested tables with a 25% chance of a table that has 4% endbosses and which endboss may or may not be randomlyy determined - and its also triggered by clerical healing in any game which uses Psionics.

[Desdan_Mervolam]

Games Workshop is the Paizo of Runequest.

This explains them flopping back and forth between grimdark uberseriousness and goofy joke-options.

[angelfromanotherpin]

Warhammer Chaos is just Runequest Chaos.

I'm pretty sure it's mostly Nemesis 'Khaos.' Seriously, reading about Torquemada and his Terminators and their anti-alien crusade really makes you wonder how GW didn't get sued out of existence as soon as 40K dropped.

[DMReckless]

While Guardians of Order was busily .....

It's incredibly shitty. I mean, how many consumer products include a manifesto stating that problems with using the consumer product are problems with the user and you're welcome to make your own damn product now that we have your money? Obviously: this didn't save the company.

-Username17

Well, you could take the exact opposite of this as presented in World of Synnibarr, equally crappy. (Along the lines of "All rules in this book are set in stone, no one may alter them one little bit, and after each game the players have the right/duty to audit the MC's adventure write up and make sure he was playing by the rules." )

EDIT: AH, yes, there's the quote:

On page 332, it states that the GM "may not, however, deviate from the rules as they are written, for if he or she does and the players find out, then the adventure can be declared null, and the characters must be restored to their original condition, as they were before the game began."

[silva]

Slaves to Darkness came out in 1978, ten actual years after the 1st edition DMG and the original Runequest books were in print.

You meant 1988.

[Kuri Näkk]

These rules are written on paper, not etched in stone tablets.
Rules are suggested guidelines, not required edicts.
If the rules don't say you can't do something, you can.
There are no official answers, only official opinions.
When dice conflict with the story, the story always wins.
Min/Maxing and Munchkinism aren't problems with the game; they're problems with the player.
The Game Master has full discretionary power over the game.
The Game Master always works with, not against, the players.
A game that is not fun is no longer a game - it's a chore.
This book contains the answers to all things.
When the above does not apply, make it up.

It's incredibly shitty. I mean, how many consumer products include a manifesto stating that problems with using the consumer product are problems with the user and you're welcome to make your own damn product now that we have your money? Obviously: this didn't save the company. -Username17

I am not fan of the Guardian of the Order products. In fact, I have skimmed only their aGoT rulebook and the actual rules did not impress. I sort of liked the manifesto, though.

What makes you think that they say that 'problems with using the consumer product are problems with the user ' or 'you're welcome to make your own damn product '? I can’t see it in the manifesto. What is so shitty about the advice that 'The Game Master always works with, not against, the players.'?

[Username17]

I am not fan of the Guardian of the Order products. In fact, I have skimmed only their aGoT rulebook and the actual rules did not impress. I sort of liked the manifesto, though.

What makes you think that they say that 'problems with using the consumer product are problems with the user ' or 'you're welcome to make your own damn product '? I can’t see it in the manifesto. What is so shitty about the advice that 'The Game Master always works with, not against, the players.'?

Imagine if instead of being attached to the instructions for playing a game, the manifesto had been attached to the instructions for operating a microwave oven:

These rules are written on paper, not etched in stone tablets.
Rules are suggested guidelines, not required edicts.
If the rules don't say you can't do something, you can.
There are no official answers, only official opinions.
When heat distribution conflicts with the dinner, the dinner always wins.
Overheating and Explosions aren't problems with the oven; they're problems with the user.
The Chef has full discretionary power over the oven.
The Chef always works with, not against, the diners.
A dinner that is not fun is no longer a dinner - it's a chore.
This book contains the answers to all things.
When the above does not apply, make it up.

Seriously, what the fuck is that? Guardians of Order were selling a product, and they put a "manifesto" on their products that disavowed responsibility for the product as sold actually being any good and then blamed the user for bad results. Try putting that kind of shit on the front of any kind of consumer product and see how far that takes you.

-Username17

[zugschef]

The Chef has full discretionary power over the oven.

[Kuri Näkk]

Seriously, what the fuck is that? Guardians of Order were selling a product, and they put a "manifesto" on their products that disavowed responsibility for the product as sold actually being any good and then blamed the user for bad results.

You seem to think that this is really obvious. It is not. I can't see them trying to limit their responsibility. I see them trying to give advice to (new) players how the RPG rules should be understood. Imagine a player who so far has only played Descent (the boardgame) and needs to be explained the idea of rules and role of GM in RPGS. I think that the manifesto would be helpful.

It is not smart to say that min/maxing is a problem with a player. Even if it objectively was a problem (which it is not) then potential buyers could take offence. However, I can't see them saying that the problems of the products are problems with players, that is, instead of:

Overheating and Explosions aren't problems with the oven .

The idea of the manifesto is:

Desire to eat junk food isn’t problem with home appliances.

[Otakusensei]

I enjoyed BESM and on the whole never really had an issue with GOO products, even if I never expected over much from them. Maybe it was the simplicity that appealed to me? Anyway I have to stand by Frank's reading here and agree that the manifesto should not appear on a product in that form.

I've made my own games, I've made my own rules. If I'm buying a product I expect that someone has already worked that shit out and that it's consistent and coherent enough to warrant me paying real American dollars(TM) for it. The microwave analogy is apt in it's simplicity; they obviously didn't mean it to say that their product may be bullshit and won't necessarily preform the function your purchased it for, but it does effectively say that and could have been handled better.

Still, good advice on it's own for anyone who's ever had to stare down a rules lawyer.

[Mistborn]

Overheating and Explosions aren't problems with the oven; they're problems with the user.

Win

[Kuri Näkk]

The microwave analogy is apt in it's simplicity; they obviously didn't mean it to say that their product may be bullshit and won't necessarily preform the function your purchased it for, but it does effectively say that and could have been handled better.

It could have been handled better. However, it takes some significant negative bias to see the manifesto as incredibly shitty advice. Sure, most RPG rules are shitty and many designers are trying to pretend they are not, so I can understand where the bias is coming from but...this does not make the manifesto shitty - overall, it is sound advice.

The oven analogy is fun but not apt: the rules of RPG are very different from instructions for using microwave ovens. As far as I can see you are, or rather Frank is, bashing GOO for daring to say out loud that RPG rules are nothing but guidelines, which the user can change. He seems to think that saying it somehow shows GOO's intent to limit their responsibility for producing good guidelines. WTF? RPG rules obviously are suggested guidelines, which the user can change and instructions for using a microwave oven are not.

I do not get 'the problems with product are problems with user' line of argument either. So, in your thinking murder is a problem with crowbars or what?

[Otakusensei]

The microwave analogy is apt in it's simplicity; they obviously didn't mean it to say that their product may be bullshit and won't necessarily preform the function your purchased it for, but it does effectively say that and could have been handled better.

It could have been handled better. However, it takes some significant negative bias to see the manifesto as incredibly shitty advice. Sure, most RPG rules are shitty and many designers are trying to pretend they are not, so I can understand where the bias is coming from but...this does not make the manifesto shitty - overall, it is sound advice.

The oven analogy is fun but not apt: the rules of RPG are very different from instructions for using microwave ovens. As far as I can see you are, or rather Frank is, bashing GOO for daring to say out loud that RPG rules are nothing but guidelines, which the user can change. He seems to think that saying it somehow shows GOO's intent to limit their responsibility for producing good guidelines. WTF? RPG rules obviously are suggested guidelines, which the user can change and instructions for using a microwave oven are not.

I do not get 'the problems with product are problems with user' line of argument either. So, in your thinking murder is a problem with crowbars or what?

Rule 0 is Rule 0 for a reason. The whole hobby grew out of a "Grow your own game" culture and therefore there really isn't a reason to mention it in the first place. Though for my part I like seeing it mentioned well from time to time. If you want a good example of that check out Frank's review of Scion where the reiteration of Rule 0 and how they parse it seems to be the only part he liked.

I once rode in a Geo Metro with three other reasonably sized gentlemen on an hour long trip to Ann Arbor in a severe hail storm just to pick up a few extra copies of Big Eyes Small Mouth 1st edition so we could get a game going that night, so I'm really not allowed to bash GOO. But the way the manifesto is presented here really is bad advice. For one it goes beyond Rule 0 and straight up tells you that if you're a munchkin or a min-maxer you are bad. Really? Fuck that.

Plus I would argue that the first two lines if included at all should be included at the bottom. The Three Laws of Robotics work because they are corollaries of each other. In the GOO manifesto it almost feels like a brain dump of precepts. If it is presented as an ordered list that makes it even worse by basically devaluing the content of any mechanics before stating the authority of the gamemaster or the importance of having fun.

So yeah, bad advice. Not an awful sentiment, or an awful company. Feel free to tell me why I'm wrong though.

[Red_Rob]

I once rode three other reasonably sized gentlemen in a barely road worthy Geo Metro

Evocative, but maybe not the thread for that

On topic, telling someone who just purchased your RPG that if the rules don't work they can ignore them and just tell stories is kind of insulting. They could already just "tell stories" before they dropped the $20 on your book, so if you end up ignoring the rules then what the hell did you pay for?

[Otakusensei]

I once rode three other reasonably sized gentlemen in a barely road worthy Geo Metro

Evocative, but maybe not the thread for that

On topic, telling someone who just purchased your RPG that if the rules don't work they can ignore them and just tell stories is kind of insulting. They could already just "tell stories" before they dropped the $20 on your book, so if you end up ignoring the rules then what the hell did you pay for?

Wow, that's an editing mistake worthy of framing. Thanks for the catch.

Also QFT. I doubt GOO intended it to be read that way, but obviously people sometimes say things that are taken in a way they didn't intend.

[aseariel]

Rule 0 is Rule 0 for a reason. The whole hobby grew out of a "Grow your own game" culture and therefore there really isn't a reason to mention it in the first place. Though for my part I like seeing it mentioned well from time to time. If you want a good example of that check out Frank's review of Scion where the reiteration of Rule 0 and how they parse it seems to be the only part he liked.

As someone who didn't really know anything about tabletop gaming until D&D 3.0 and thereabouts, Rule 0 was one of the later concepts I picked up, actually. I'd venture that any given system can be someone's first, and they may have just picked up the book or pdf or what have you on a whim, so a succinct version of the concept isn't necessarily unwarranted.

That said, a poorly worded one is more likely to just confuse a newer player.

As for the latter bit of what I quoted, for anyone curious who hasn't read the referenced thread,

That's just really refreshing. A Rule Zero tirade that doesn't fap to the all powerful nature of the MC and acknowledges the purpose of rules and the malleability of the system and setting from a cooperative storytelling standpoint. It's almost like whoever wrote that wasn't working for White Wolf.

And in its larger context, if you're into that sort of thing.

[Kuri Näkk]

The whole hobby grew out of a "Grow your own game" culture and therefore there really isn't a reason to mention it in the first place.

On the contrary: it is the very reason to mention it. The manifesto tells you how GOO thinks you should approach the contents. It can be useful for someone new to RPGs. Besides, in my experience many veteran GMs would profit by realizing/keeping in mind that 'Game Master always works with, not against, the players'

But the way the manifesto is presented here really is bad advice. For one it goes beyond Rule 0 and straight up tells you that if you're a munchkin or a min-maxer you are bad. Really? Fuck that.

Yes, fuck that. Nonetheless, it is stupid for calling min/maxing bad not because it states that problems with the product are problem with players - it simply does not say that.

To cut it short, I have no issue with what you said about the problems with manifesto. I was just a bit confused. You claimed that you 'stand by Frank's reading' but

It's incredibly shitty. I mean, how many consumer products include a manifesto stating that problems with using the consumer product are problems with the user and you're welcome to make your own damn product now that we have your money?

Guardians of Order were selling a product, and they put a "manifesto" on their products that disavowed responsibility for the product as sold actually being any good and then blamed the user for bad results.

Wrong structure and calling min/maxers bad are not in Frank's list, are they? Nevermind. I think I got your point: in the present form the manifesto can be easily misunderstood and parts of it are stupid.

And in its larger context, if you're into that sort of thing.

Thanks!