Why do people fetishize Magic Tea Party

[shadzar]

here are more to the list of "rules" people care so little about using or remembering. some have even been removed form the game to the chagrin of some players:

weapon type vs armor
weapon speed
casting time (see segments of rounds)
initiative
class based XP awards
ununified level progession

were these rules bad? no, they worked. but for many they were fiddly bits. for those that knew them, AND WANTED TO USE THEM, they were good rules.

so why were good rules removed? because the nature of an RPG is a group of rulings that are common ground for the group of players to build upon.

does the "rules not rulings" crowd think combat round segments and weapon type vs armor needs to return to D&D? they were rules, they worked. so why are they gone i ask those people?

i will also answer for those people, it is jsut as Fuchs says, that not everybody wants to use everything, even if it IS a good rule that works. PLAYER CHOICE requires rulings, because nobody from WotC, WW, whoever makes Shadowrun, etc is at YOUR game table with a gun to everyone's heads demanding that they use all the rules all the time.

this is what the OSR crowd is meaning when they prefer "rulings over rules". they simply want to be able to play the way they enjoy playing, without someone else telling them that their way is badwrongfun.

[/thread]

[Kaelik]

it's always faster to make up a dc and have someone roll than look something up. Always.

This is quite obviously false.

Doused with a flammable liquid and set on fire. Never came up in years. I vaguely remember there's some "on fire" rules somewhere, not sure if it's enviroment or flasks or whatever.

It is environment, but some spells also reference it. It is 1d6 Fire per round DC 15 Ref to put it out. I have never used that rule, and I don't have very much free time, and the last time I read it was probably over a year ago. You must be an idiot to not remember something so simple. I say this not because I actually care or think you are an idiot, but I think that rules would be super easy to remember if you actually tried at all.

Jumping on or off a horse - probably in the ride or acrobatics or jump description.

Riding. But I love how in your attempt to talk about how fucking hard it is to look up, because it might be in one of three different places, you proved that you don't even remember what skills even exist. Which is pretty pathetic. Because you only listed two skills there.

Crashing a chandelier on someone.

Falling damage is stupid and needs to be fixed, so carry on making rulings, because this is a bad rule. Or you know, as people have discussed, instead of making up shitty rules over and and over, you could think about it for several whole minutes and come up with a good rule once, and use that all the time.

Improvised weapon damage.

They take a -4 penalty to hit, and they do damage based on your imagination. No seriously, the rules to tell you to make up damage, so good job following the rules Fuchs.

[Cyberzombie]

A lot of people in this thread are sounding like the 4rries at the WotC boards who used to tell me they get 4E combats over in 15-30 minutes and they've never seen an hour long combat. I really don't give a shit. If your group can achieve that, great. But it doesn't change the fact that none of mine can.

Look guys... It's not us guessing that looking up rules takes a long while. We've all seen it happen. It might be because rules are spread over multiple books, rules chain together and reference other rules, you have errata to consult, and then you have players that insist they saw a rule that didn't actually exist. I don't really know.

But all that is beside the point, because this isn't speculation or some opinion that needs to be defended. I was physically sitting there in multiple groups where looking up a rule took 5-10 minutes before we got back to the game. Yes, I was so bored sometimes that I timed it to see how much time I was wasting. That's not hypothetical, this is actual fact. There's nothing anyone is going to say here that's going to convince me that those events didn't happen.

I'm not sure why this stupid debate is still going on. Why is it important that everyone agrees that oranges taste better than apples? Why must there be a definitive best answer on how to play D&D? Why is it important that everyone convert or die to the ONE TRUE WAY of playing D&D?

Seriously, call off the crusade. It's not getting anywhere.

[NineInchNall]

Because "oranges taste better than apples" is a preference. "Referencing rules is slow" is a statement of purported fact. It is disingenuous to argue for a preference as though it is fact, and it is stupid to argue for a fact (either subjective or objective, relative or universal) as though it is a preference.

If all people were saying was, "I like rule-free games better than games with rules," that would be fine. No one could even touch that. It's an automatic tie.

However, people are not just saying that. Instead of saying, "I like oranges better than apples, because I prefer citrus tanginess," they say, "I like oranges better than apples, because oranges have thinner skins." And so the thread continues to live on, draining the vital energies of everyone involved to sate its deathless hunger.

[Fuchs]

Because "oranges taste better than apples" is a preference. "Referencing rules is slow" is a statement of purported fact. It is disingenuous to argue for a preference as though it is fact, and it is stupid to argue for a fact (either subjective or objective, relative or universal) as though it is a preference.

But saying "roll ride, dc 15" is faster than looking the actual rule up and then saying "roll ride, dc x". I don't know why anyone is even arguing that.

[Kaelik]

Because "oranges taste better than apples" is a preference. "Referencing rules is slow" is a statement of purported fact. It is disingenuous to argue for a preference as though it is fact, and it is stupid to argue for a fact (either subjective or objective, relative or universal) as though it is a preference.

But saying "roll ride, dc 15" is faster than looking the actual rule up and then saying "roll ride, dc x". I don't know why anyone is even arguing that.

Because sometimes rules are more complex than roll X. So if your statement is:

"Sometimes, when I don't know the rules, I just make up a completely arbitrary DC, tell people to roll it, and sometimes this results in negative consequences for the game because the DC is shittly designed because I don't think about it all, and in all future situations I make up a completely new DC every time without trying to remember my past rulings ever at any point, thus creating a crazy mirror world where sometimes things are easy and sometimes they are hard purely based on how I felt that day."

Then I would agree that the process described is faster than looking up the rule (although I still maintain that you could remember it very easily if you tried).

But the second time you run into the same situation, making up your ruling takes more time than remembering the actual rule from last time (or the ruling from last time, but if you can remember the ruling, you can probably remember the rule).

So both you aren't saving time over a 10 year campaign because you have to keep coming up with new rulings, and either you aren't actually coming up with good rules because you make them up in a second without thinking about them or you spend time thinking of good rules that often takes longer than looking up the actual rule, which in many cases is already good.

[Username17]

I'm confused. Zak was arguing that rulings were better than rules because he's personally too awesome to accidentally make a shitty ruling. Now Fuchs is arguing that rulings are better than rules because he's too fucking stupid to remember how much damage a fireball does.

Frankly, both arguments are implausible. Noone is that awesome or that stupid in real life.

-Username17

[Cyberzombie]

Because "oranges taste better than apples" is a preference. "Referencing rules is slow" is a statement of purported fact. It is disingenuous to argue for a preference as though it is fact, and it is stupid to argue for a fact (either subjective or objective, relative or universal) as though it is a preference.

Referencing rules is slow for my groups. I have seen it. I can accept that in other groups it's different, but for mine, I'm telling you what happened. Not speculation, not hypotheticals... history. It has already happened, there is nothing that can be said that will change what happened.

At best you can convince me that rules look-up is lightning fast in your gaming group, but that doesn't matter to me because I'm gaming with my own groups. So it won't change what works best for me.

I'm still not sure what you expect to achieve here.

[Kaelik]

Referencing rules is slow for my groups. I have seen it. I can accept that in other groups it's different, but for mine, I'm telling you what happened. Not speculation, not hypotheticals... history. It has already happened, there is nothing that can be said that will change what happened.

At best you can convince me that rules look-up is lightning fast in your gaming group, but that doesn't matter to me because I'm gaming with my own groups. So it won't change what works best for me.

I'm still not sure what you expect to achieve here.

Well since this is a thread about MTP fetishes, the thing we are attempting to understand is why people advocate that MTP works well for all sorts of stuff that it doesn't.

If, in the future, every time you talk about MTP and how great it is or advocate other people use it, you preface your comments with "MTP might be the solution, if your group is completely retarded and does not understand the concept of an index. Or, if you aren't retarded, you should come up with a better solution than MTP" I would personally never mind if people advocating MTP prefaced their comments that way.

[MGuy]

Referencing rules is slow for my groups. I have seen it. I can accept that in other groups it's different, but for mine, I'm telling you what happened. Not speculation, not hypotheticals... history. It has already happened, there is nothing that can be said that will change what happened.

At best you can convince me that rules look-up is lightning fast in your gaming group, but that doesn't matter to me because I'm gaming with my own groups. So it won't change what works best for me.

I'm still not sure what you expect to achieve here.

Well since this is a thread about MTP fetishes, the thing we are attempting to understand is why people advocate that MTP works well for all sorts of stuff that it doesn't.

If, in the future, every time you talk about MTP and how great it is or advocate other people use it, you preface your comments with "MTP might be the solution, if your group is completely retarded and does not understand the concept of an index. Or, if you aren't retarded, you should come up with a better solution than MTP" I would personally never mind if people advocating MTP prefaced their comments that way.

Well I think you have hit the nail on the head. That's the whole thing. People are too lazy, arrogant, and/or retarded to really learn or follow the rules.

[NineInchNall]

Referencing rules is slow for my groups. I have seen it. I can accept that in other groups it's different, but for mine, I'm telling you what happened. Not speculation, not hypotheticals... history. It has already happened, there is nothing that can be said that will change what happened.

At best you can convince me that rules look-up is lightning fast in your gaming group, but that doesn't matter to me because I'm gaming with my own groups. So it won't change what works best for me.

I'm still not sure what you expect to achieve here.

Seriously, dude. You're back to arguing as if it's not a preference issue, despite the fact that you were just trying to say it's a preference issue:

I'm not sure why this stupid debate is still going on. Why is it important that everyone agrees that oranges taste better than apples? Why must there be a definitive best answer on how to play D&D? Why is it important that everyone convert or die to the ONE TRUE WAY of playing D&D?

Pick one mode and stick to it.

[shadzar]

People are too lazy, arrogant, and/or retarded to really learn or follow the rules.

i fully understand why people prefer BAB to THAC0 now.

[phlapjackage]

The days of being asked to go through literally 600 pages of documents to find a rule that might not exist and is likely hidden in a block of unrelated flavor text if it is are over. There's no excuse for a game system to look like that in the modern era, and acting like game systems necessarily are like that is simply disingenuous. Exalted was backwards and shitty in 2001. People complained of poor organization and layout for WFRP in 1986. It's two thousand and fucking thirteen. Arguing that information is necessarily hard to find in a game book is ridiculous.

-Username17

*cough* SR5 *cough*

[K]

I just played a new game tonight. It's called Battlestations. We had to look up a bunch of rules because the DM hadn't played it in three years and none of us had ever seen it.

It was pretty fast despite the fact that it hid information in too many places. We used the index and read the rules, spending about 1-2 minutes each time. We had a great time.

Next time, we won't have to look up the rules because we know them now. It'll be even faster.

[Fuchs]

Well I think you have hit the nail on the head. That's the whole thing. People are too lazy, arrogant, and/or retarded to really learn or follow the rules.

Lazy? I really have better things to do with my time than learning rules I rarely to never use. If that's lazy, so be it.

But! I am not exactly an exception in not wanting to waste time on things I won't really use. A game designer should take into account that a lot of people are that "lazy", and not expect everyone to learn every rule.

[MGuy]

Well I think you have hit the nail on the head. That's the whole thing. People are too lazy, arrogant, and/or retarded to really learn or follow the rules.

Lazy? I really have better things to do with my time than learning rules I rarely to never use. If that's lazy, so be it.

But! I am not exactly an exception in not wanting to waste time on things I won't really use. A game designer should take into account that a lot of people are that "lazy", and not expect everyone to learn every rule.

I acknowledge that you are so arrogant that 1 to 2 minutes spent looking up a rule is too beneath you. I acknowledge that you are too lazy to remember simple rules about things that seem fairly common in most games(how does burning work on things that are on fire really doesn't come up much?). At no time though will I expect a designer to design a game for people that will be too retarded to reference the rules when they need them.

[Fuchs]

Well I think you have hit the nail on the head. That's the whole thing. People are too lazy, arrogant, and/or retarded to really learn or follow the rules.

Lazy? I really have better things to do with my time than learning rules I rarely to never use. If that's lazy, so be it.

But! I am not exactly an exception in not wanting to waste time on things I won't really use. A game designer should take into account that a lot of people are that "lazy", and not expect everyone to learn every rule.

I acknowledge that you are so arrogant that 1 to 2 minutes spent looking up a rule is too beneath you. I acknowledge that you are too lazy to remember simple rules about things that seem fairly common in most games(how does burning work on things that are on fire really doesn't come up much?). At no time though will I expect a designer to design a game for people that will be too retarded to reference the rules when they need them.

And as I keep pointing out - we don't need the rules we don't look up. I'd ask you to try to understand the difference, if I thought you'd have the mental flexibility for that.

[MGuy]

Lazy? I really have better things to do with my time than learning rules I rarely to never use. If that's lazy, so be it.

But! I am not exactly an exception in not wanting to waste time on things I won't really use. A game designer should take into account that a lot of people are that "lazy", and not expect everyone to learn every rule.

I acknowledge that you are so arrogant that 1 to 2 minutes spent looking up a rule is too beneath you. I acknowledge that you are too lazy to remember simple rules about things that seem fairly common in most games(how does burning work on things that are on fire really doesn't come up much?). At no time though will I expect a designer to design a game for people that will be too retarded to reference the rules when they need them.

And as I keep pointing out - we don't need the rules we don't look up. I'd ask you to try to understand the difference, if I thought you'd have the mental flexibility for that.

You can use that statement on any rule that exists.

[zugschef]

And as I keep pointing out - we don't need the rules we don't look up. I'd ask you to try to understand the difference, if I thought you'd have the mental flexibility for that.

Obviously you do need them, otherwise you wouldn't improvise and make shit up on the fly with your MTP-based rulings.

[fectin]

Learning rules is easy. You use them a few times and then you've learned them.

Looking up rules is easy and fast. There are indexes and tables and shit.

Why are people pretending that this is some massive chore? Why are they claiming that it takes ten minutes to figure out how a rule works? Do they have dyslexia? Do they have to translate the English words into Russian and they only have half of a dictionary? Are they drunk and high?

I'll understand if they are junkie Russian dyslexics with only English rulebooks. Those guys get a pass.

Be fair: you reference, analyze, and synthesize rulings professionally, on a much grander scale. That you may find RPG rules trivially easy may not actually be a useful datapoint.
(Everyone's good at something. I happen to find basic physics trivially easy. That doesn't mean everyone does, nor that I should be the target audience for ballistics instructions. )

[shadzar]

A game designer should take into account that a lot of people are that "lazy", and not expect everyone to learn every rule.

no, what game designers need to learn is that people may love a game, they don't live only for that game. no matter the age, the small amounts of effort it took to run AD&D was targeted at people with free time and nothing to do. in today's world, people have so much electronic shit they have PLENTY of things to do and don't want to spend their lives with just one product or piece of entertainment. like those people wanting video games want instant gratification and flashy explosions on the screen, or particle animations.

this isnt what TTRPGs are about. it isnt about instant gratification, but that doesn't mean you have to go overboard and make someone devote the amount of time and money it would take to become a lawyer.

just because a designers makes a living off of one game, most people dont live just for one game and their life doesnt revolve around it.

80% of the AD&D content i own i would never use in a game, but it was fun to read and inspiring to take parts from.

there is only a handful of people that want to live only for a single game instead of all other things in their life.

the people wanting tournament level play are a bit foolish because chess is played by more people than any single TTRPG. not everyone that plays it wants to be some world champion, but it allows for it. the fact that more people play it is because the rules are easy to learn.

not everyone wants a PhD in Pathfinder, or D&D, or Shadowrun, or whatever. they want to be able to play and have fun.

[Fuchs]

And as I keep pointing out - we don't need the rules we don't look up. I'd ask you to try to understand the difference, if I thought you'd have the mental flexibility for that.

You can use that statement on any rule that exists.

There is a clear difference between needed rules - rules we use almost each session, and therefore know - and rules we almost never use, and therefore do no need and can easily replace by a ruling.

[Cyberzombie]

If, in the future, every time you talk about MTP and how great it is or advocate other people use it, you preface your comments with "MTP might be the solution, if your group is completely retarded and does not understand the concept of an index. Or, if you aren't retarded, you should come up with a better solution than MTP" I would personally never mind if people advocating MTP prefaced their comments that way.

And everytime you talk about rules-heavy and how great it is, you can preface your comments with: "rules heavy might be your solution, if your entire gaming group is a bunch of anal elitist geeks with no social life who have nothing better to do on a Saturday night than devote themselves to memorizing several rulebooks cover-to-cover. Or, if your group is actually composed of relatively normal people with lives beyond D&D, you can try making rulings to replace trivial rules nobody knows anyway."

Now can we stop with the elitist bullshit and just agree it's a preference issue or are you still going to do nothing but continue to tell us how great your gaming group is because they can look up any rule in under 65 seconds? No matter how many times you play the elitist asshole card, our groups are still taking the same time to look shit up. If you were half as smart as you claim to be, you'd realize that and just give it up.

Nobody here is trying to convince you to switch to MTP. We know you have your own preferences and if it works for you, great. Just stop preaching the One True Way. We already tried drinking your kool-aid, we didn't like it. We've told you why. Now just accept it.

[Kaelik]

And everytime you talk about rules-heavy and how great it is, you can preface your comments with: "rules heavy might be your solution, if your entire gaming group is a bunch of anal elitist geeks with no social life who have nothing better to do on a Saturday night than devote themselves to memorizing several rulebooks cover-to-cover. Or, if your group is actually composed of relatively normal people with lives beyond D&D, you can try making rulings to replace trivial rules nobody knows anyway."

Except of course that unlike my suggested preface, that is not true. I don't read game books on Saturday nights and I do have a social life.

On the other hand, it is apparently your claim that it takes you ten minutes to look up rules. Which really must mean you are literally the dumbest person in the fucking universe.

No matter how many times you play the elitist asshole card, our groups are still taking the same time to look shit up. If you were half as smart as you claim to be, you'd realize that and just give it up.

So... on the one hand, we definitely can't convince you that in some groups it doesn't take 10 fucking minutes to look up a rule, because that is your experience, and we can't change history. But on the other hand, you apparently expect to be able to convince me that it actually takes a long time to look up rules and I have secretly been locked in stasis for 9 minutes and 30 seconds every time we look up a rule.

Seriously you fucktarded wretch. It if has ever taken you longer than two minutes even once to look up a rule in 3e, then it is just flatly untrue that our groups take the same time to look up rules. My groups are not composed entirely of idiots, so we can look up rules in under a minute pretty much all the time.

Nobody here is trying to convince you to switch to MTP.

Nobody on here is trying to convince me to switch, but this thread is about all the dumb shits on other forums who do nothing but try to convince everyone that they should switch. That is literally the point of the thread.

[MGuy]

And as I keep pointing out - we don't need the rules we don't look up. I'd ask you to try to understand the difference, if I thought you'd have the mental flexibility for that.

You can use that statement on any rule that exists.

There is a clear difference between needed rules - rules we use almost each session, and therefore know - and rules we almost never use, and therefore do no need and can easily replace by a ruling.

Please look at the bolded part of what you said. Clearly you're not familiar with your own argument.