Why do people fetishize Magic Tea Party

[Kaelik]

Why do people fetishize rules heavy party

I think you missed a large part of that question.

[Fuchs]

Why do people fetishize rules heavy party

Some do it because it gives them the Illusion of control over the evil gm out to ruin their fun.

Others simply like to be able to plan their actions knowing the odds and rules applied before stating what they do. Sometimes those also like to pull the rug out from under the GM by setting up surprising consequences of seeimgly simple actions.

Not everyone likes that kind of game though - it often leads to the GM doing the same, or starting to twist the players' actions around as if it was an efreeti wish, looking for loopholes to mess with their intented Goal.

[PhoneLobster]

Now if you are talking about zombie fetish ideas that will not die despite being excessively stupid, deeply offensive and bad for any and ALL discussion or development of game rules...

the Illusion of control over the evil gm out to ruin their fun.

The "You must have bad GMs/you must hate GMs" thing.

It's frankly obscene. Those who use it use it as a last resort to defend bad rules and attack good ones, rules that could help players AND GMs.

Sometimes they play it like a sort of stupid arse backwards Oberoni fallacy. "You don't need good rules because bad GMs will be bad anyway!" then maybe they roll it back to regular Oberoni by just telling you to "stop playing with bad GMs" generally ignoring the fact that you are usually yourself the GM you play with, and that hey, their oberoni bullshit advice hasn't helped you one fucking bit actually get, say, a functional social currency system off the ground.

But more often the deep authoritarian worship complex that seems to be at the root of so many bad RPG forumites issues rears it's head and the entire attack angle is really more a "You like A RULE! That means you do not trust GMs! How DARE you not trust GMs, you FILTHY FUCKING GM HATER!"

Don't believe me?

...those also like to pull the rug out from under the GM by setting up surprising consequences of seeimgly simple actions.

How DARE you try to trick the GM with your... use of abilities he presumably wants you to use in agreed upon game rules that aren't even fucking oppositional.

Yeah, but really, note the authoritarian complex on display here.

Or better...

...it often leads to the GM doing the same...

See because if you all agree on rules and you as a player dare to use them then the GM might too! THE HORROR!

Well, actually he is TRYING to do is instead just pull a fucking bullshit passive aggressive attack where he rubbishes people disagreeing with him as not ONLY having bad GMs, and not ONLY being bad players but ALSO as CAUSING bad GMs!

Fuchs is, frankly being an epic doosh calling everyone who disagree with him bad gamer doodie heads.

But that particular method of doing that is RIFE in RPG forums and WILL NOT DIE. Why?

[Fuchs]

PL, get off your persecution complex. I didn't say it was bad to surprise the GM - just that it can lead to retaliation, and escalate. Some people like that.

I've played games where I used the rules to trick the GM, setting up surprises he didn't see coming. And the GM tried to do the same to the players. I was decent at that sort of thing, with enough rules lawyering thrown in to usually top whatever the GM threw at us. It was just another arm's race though, together with optimizing characters and NPCs.

I don't like that playstyle. Others like matching wits with the GM, for me it's too controversial or competitve to have fun doing it. It's not my cup of tea.

And stop lieing about what People say and mean - I do not attack good rules. I attack paranoid delusions about hypothetical "perfect rules" being able to prevent bad GMing and bringing world peace, and arrogant fanatasies about one playstyle fitting every player and group.

[PhoneLobster]

Yeah man, all you are doing is accusing anyone who uses RULES as being obsessed with LAWYERING and EXCESSIVELY OPPOSITIONAL PLAY. As a way of discrediting RULES IN GENERAL.

YOU FUCKING STUPID DOOSH.

[Fuchs]

What color is the sky on your planet, PL?

[virgil]

That must be difficult to admit as you hide away in a secret lair in East Texas afraid of playing with actual people whether in person or online.

East Texas? I wonder if I ran into him. Yes, the place is large, so if he stuck to Texarkana or Alba, I wouldn't have ever seen him.

[fectin]

3) As to following the letter of the law, that is very obviously because it is not their job to figure out what the law is. That is the judges job. The jury is the trier of fact, and they are not tasked with figuring out what the law is.

I am neither a lawyer nor an expert.
Isn't the precedent there still mostly Sparf and Hanson v. US though?

in the courts of the United States, it is the duty of juries in criminal cases to take the law from the court and apply that law to the facts as they find them to be from the evidence. Upon the court rests the responsibility of declaring the law; upon the jury, the responsibility of applying the law so declared to the facts as they, upon their conscience, believe them to be.

It goes on to say, roughly, that the courts would instruct juries however they damn well pleased.

Googling about suggests that the supreme court hasn't addressed the issue again since then, and that the various circuits have basically followed this.

In practice, I'm not sure what would be the difference between rejecting a law and deciding that it doesn't apply, but it is pretty clear that judges determine what the law is, and that's been true nor about 120 years.

[MGuy]

Why do people fetishize rules heavy party

Edit is needed here.

It is obvious that instead of quietly disappearing from this thread after it being pointed out that neither Fuchs nor CZ are actually arguing the topic at hand they feel the need to continue baiting people into arguing it with them. It seems as though silva is trying to hop all over that hawt action. What I don't understand is why they haven't gone and just made a thread where they can just have that argument instead trying to pressure people into arguing it in this one which is clearly not about "rules lite vs rules heavy".

By now I figure they know what they've done and have realized by now they don't have an actual position on this subject. PL I think you'd strike more of a critical blow to their egos by simply not giving their argument a ranting. I think that they want someone to rant at them so they can try to legitimize the time and space they've wasted in this thread. If you 'start' to acknowledge their arguments as part of this conversation then they won't let it die.

[deaddmwalking]

I wasn't going to respond, but there were some real gems in this:

That sounds like passion.

no it is obsession, which can be a very bad thing. so many people post-2000 are jsut obsessed with being able to sy they paly D&D, they try to enforce changes in the game so that they can play it & like it. well they didn't like it before, so why MUST they like it? because they are obsessed with saying they like it.

If you believe that people are obsessed with saying 'I play D&D' (even when what they want to play is very different from what you consider to be D&D) do you have any ideas about what would motivate them? Why would saying "I play D&D" be better then saying "I play Unique Fantasy Role Play Game"? I mean, people are more likely to have heard of Dungeons & Dragons than, say, Tunnels and Trolls, so D&D can be used as a shorthand for TTRPGs, but beyond that, I can't imagine why people who don't actually play D&D would be obsessed with calling it that.

this is not a view held by only a few people, s you can see if on many forums, from that one person on the WotC forums to that pemerton, who has proven doesnt even paly D&D but always complains about it and says how much better many systems are over on ENWorld, to some people on here who need not be named that try to take the adventure game into a tool for telling mini-novellas.

If D&D is a flexible system, then it might be possible to use it for any number of play styles. Below this quote, that seems to be what you're saying. But even if you LIKE D&D as it stands, you might have some ideas for improvement. The thing about changes to the 'standard rules' is that they can have big 'ripple effects' that affect every other aspect of the game. For instance, you want only 3 classes, with every 'hybrid class' composed of a blend of those three. If that is NOT made the core rule, then every adventure and supplement will require conversion to your rule. If that IS the core rule, then every possible supplment will be immediately useful to you without modification.

There's nothing wrong with advocating making your life easier - especially if many others would benefit extensively.

but it doesnt mean ANY of those changes should be put forth as the core of the game. but these people obsess over trying to change the core of the game so that it is no longer than and those no longer D&D for future editions.

It really seems to me that your main objection is not that 3.x exists, it's that it's called D&D. The thing is, there are other words that have multiple meanings (like spatula - you know it can be used to mean something you flip burgers with or it can be a rubber thing you scrape batter out of a bowl with - totally different meanings and they're BOTH things you find in a kitchen - talk about confusing) but there ARE clear differences in the name. A 1968 Mustang is different from a 2013 Mustang, but there are certain commonalities as well. For people that know, mentioning the year explains those differences. Saying 'I play 2nd edition D&D' and 'I play 3rd edition D&D' are easily discerned to convey many of the differences that exist for those two people - even if they have both made changes to the game (after-market parts to continue the car analogy).

no game > bad game

For all your ranting against one-true-wayism, this sounds like a matter of preference. Even a good game can have bad parts; a bad game can have good parts. Even if the game is mostly bad, it can still be enjoyed in a masochistic way. Sometimes I enjoy bad movies because of how cringe inducing they are. And sometimes the stories of 'bad' gamers are more amusing than the stories of good games. Like the guy that had a gnome fetish and continually insisted that the size of a gnome's nose was directly proportional to the size of the gnome's penis...

i love playing D&D, but i won't play with just anyone, and you wouldnt see me playing "D&D with porn stars" because that isnt the type of person i would want to game with or spend time with.

This strikes me as horribly judgemental. Considering how you object to defining a class like 'Thief' based on their 'occupation', I'd think you'd be willing to give people more of a break here. Occupation doesn't define the person. I watched an interesting documentary with my wife available streaming through NetFlix called After Porn Ends. Personally, I think that porn actors (and especially actresses) are unfairly stigmatized by society. Lots of people have sex; lots of people have been filmed having sex - these people usually get a pass. But if you have lots of sex and are filmed lots of times and God forbid get paid suddenly people don't want anything to do with you. That's terrible. People are people, and they should be treated like people.

Even if you don't agree with porn as an industry (which pretty much makes you a very small minority), there are quite a few people in porn who got involved for the wrong reasons and regret their decision. I also regret working a dead-end job for too long before getting involved in something I like much better - so at the very least, no matter what your opinions of the porn industry I think you should at least consider that people make mistakes and they shouldn't be held against them for the rest of their lives.

if that was my only choice. i would do without and wait until the proper group of people WAS found with similar minds of what they want out of the game. the "porn stars" and drunkards and druggies, can all have their games at their house, but NONE of them should influence the game design of those "sacred cows" so that the game is no longer D&D, an open gaming system that allows varying playstyles.

People are people. All of them should say what they like. Their opinions should be considered - but that doesn't necessarily mean they should be catered to.

I think that they understand that a DM can make a ruling that works, but they also recognize that relying on each individual DM to come up with a ruling that works well is a Herculean task.

and this is why it was said of being a DM the same as playing chess. it takes a few minutes to learn, but a lifetime to master. it isnt for everyone. apparently there ARE better games out there for people that have a problem with D&Ds DMing concept. also there are better games than say 3.x for DMing as the horror stories of it being a DMs worst nightmare and a players wet dream exists. you need LESS rules for the DM to have to be forced to follow and the players receptive of DM decisions and rulings. this thread has proven that some will NEVER accept a ruling made by anyone that was not already a RULE in the published book as they dont understand..

Nobody has said that they will NEVER accept a ruling made by anyone that was not already a RULE in a published book. In fact, EVERYONE has agreed that there are going to be times when a ruling is the only possible solution. Based on the open style of TTRPGs, it is absolutely possible to end up in a situation that a designer never considered. How is jump affected by 2x standard Earth Gravity? Most people don't want to run complex equations to resolve actions, and most designers don't consider worlds very different from Earth standard. But even if you accept that sometimes rulings MUST happen, you can still have different ideas about when they're appropriate. Personally, I don't think a ruling is appropriate when a perfectly good rule already exists (unless finding it is very difficult and the consequences of the action mostly immaterial - make it a life or death situation and you'd better believe that I want to know what the rules are before I make a ruling).

Most designers do not possess the analytical capability or the ability to clearly communicate the problem areas without a lot of prevarication that the Den, taken as a whole, does.

Gary fucked up.
Mentzer fucked up
"Zeb"/Winter fucked up
Tweet fucked up
Mearls fuccked up.

EVERY designer so far has fucked up, so why in the hell would you take their words (rules) as gospel? i am more willing to trust to an extent the designers that admit they are NOT all-knowing (Gary, Mentzer, "Zeb"/Winter) and possibly got some things wrong and state so in print as opposed to those that think they are gaming gods that can do no wrong (Tweet, Mearls). I will further trust the person running the game that speaks directly to me rather than giving canned responses to the masses behind some CSR wall to make the game work for me. If they fail, I know how to either leave, or just not return for the next time they try to play.

Expecting perfection right out of the gate is probably unreasonable. Expecting perfection may be unreasonable, as well. But expecting that good ideas can be further refined and bad ideas can likewise be improved is totally reasonable. Some improvements are totally subjective, but not all. If you have a good start, you can work to refine and improve it. If you don't have a good start, you can start from scratch and try to avoid the mistakes you made before.

if they were passionate about the game so much, they would be playing it their way and enjoying it and not care how others play it, unlike the pemerton's. that is why i don't go into AS or ED or Shadowrun threads here, because i could give two shits less about how they are run or palyed. i dont have any interest in them positive or negative. the just dont exist as far as i am concerned. and as i said that before i will say thi again, i go into 3.x threads many times because they are unmarked and also to remind people other-times that there are things designers leave out, either from earlier editions or the designers own mind where they forgot to add a kernel of information they meant to share either because of just being too busy, they took it for granted everyone would know it (from play or past editions) or just to save page space in the book.

You know, I started posting on message boards like this because I wanted to share the things that worked for me, personally, and ask opinions when things seemed not to work. It's possible to misunderstand a rule, for instance. Trying to help people have fun is altruistic. If you COULD help people, but you don't, that kind of makes you a dick. If you're spending all your time talking at people when you could be helping them, that confirms you're a dick. If you don't care how people play, why do you keep posting here about objections you have to 'direction D&D moved in 15 years ago'?

it HAS spawned some interesting ideas, that maybe SOME people read, but most has just that fight, and to call it what it most closely is "schoolyard bullying" as it is pretty much just a school fight (old v new) where one person just wants to attack a group it doesnt like with no further purpose beyond that.

I think you're mischaracterizing the conversation. Largely, the people that arrived in this thread to defend 'Magic Tea Party' have not done so. They've instead tried to defend rules light games (which were never under attack). And I really wouldn't call what's happening here 'bullying'. There are disagreements, sure. There are personal attacks - but they're pretty equal so it's hard for someone to claim to be a victim. There have also been some times where people have been called out on their poorly substantiated claims. Par for the course, really.

[zugschef]

But I apparently misunderstood; I thought that YOU were claiming that judges (and metaphorically, DMs) shouldn't disagree about intent. If you weren't claiming that, I have no idea what point you thought you were making.

The point I thought I was making is the same point that I was making. That in fact people who think they totally know what the obvious intent is are absolutely wrong because just as many people are certain of the absolutely opposite intent, and are just as certain that it is absolutely obvious.

The logical conclusion is that whatever the intent is, even if it exists, it isn't obvious.

Also, if the intent of the law is more important than the letter, WTF are judges so harsh on jury nullification, and commonly give instructions that jurors have to follow the letter of the law even when it's retarded and/or a miscarriage of justice?

1) Because jury nullification very rarely if never has has to with the spirit of the laws. Jury nullification is when the jury thinks the law is bad law and refuse to enforce it.

2) I very seriously doubt that judges commonly, or really, ever give instructions to do anything when it is a miscarriage of justice, so I'm going to file that under does not actually happen.

3) As to following the letter of the law, that is very obviously because it is not their job to figure out what the law is. That is the judges job. The jury is the trier of fact, and they are not tasked with figuring out what the law is.

That's why some trials set precedents, because it was not obvious what the law's intent actually is.

[shadzar]

If you believe that people are obsessed with saying 'I play D&D' (even when what they want to play is very different from what you consider to be D&D) do you have any ideas about what would motivate them?

will come back to this after supper if i can find it, but yes i do as MANY have said why.

because "D&D is THE game to play", they equated it to having the right console to show off and brag about so it mattered not what games were on Xbox or PS2, but that you have the right system to brag about to other people.

in terms of D&D, they want to be able to say that they are plying the "in" game and following the right fads. this hasnt changed much since the 70s, only the fads followed have changed and the popularity races still wages on. it is even in the name "pop culture" popular, culture.

people want to be able to say they are doing what is popular.

so in short, being popular motivates them. have to like the right sports team, wear the right brand clothing, play the right games, etc. same shit, different decade.

[deaddmwalking]

people want to be able to say they are doing what is popular.

You're delusional. Nothing about 'Dungeons & Dragons' is popular. It's a niche hobby with some extremely negative stereotypes.

[RadiantPhoenix]

people want to be able to say they are doing what is popular.

You're delusional. Nothing about 'Dungeons & Dragons' is popular. It's a niche hobby with some extremely negative stereotypes.

In relative terms, D&D was pretty popular during 3e.

[Archmage]

Are you accusing shadzar of being disconnected from reality?

[shadzar]

people want to be able to say they are doing what is popular.

You're delusional. Nothing about 'Dungeons & Dragons' is popular. It's a niche hobby with some extremely negative stereotypes.

no, you are delusional.

90s D&D was failing, uesnet groups were discussing, only people playing D&D really looked at it or talked about it on the "forums" of the time, or in AOL groups. sometimes ALL RPGs were lumped in with D&D because those playing RIFTs or GURPs didnt get their own low visibility place, they sjut got put in something like "D&D and Other RPGs" for discussions. but those playing RIFTs didnt say they played D&D because everyone knew the moment a rahu-man or glitterboy was mentioned you were just being stupid to claim that is D&D. nor would you find discussion or a mind-flayer in a Boot Hill forum/group.

enter yahoo groups, internet to the home, and broadband, all at the same time as 3.x with MtG in the height of its popularity and magazines just for MtG that had other TCG as well, and D&D was a big thing you wanted to be a part of.

new people to the game had heard about D&D, i mean to have those negative connotations, you HAD to have heard about it, but not all had heard of Traveller, FATAL, Rifts, GURPS, Boot Hill, etc so the big name was the ONLY name they knew and it was D&D and "EVERYONE was talking about it". now you got things like Hero Wars and al this other stuff where people have "Xerox'd" D&D (pun intended) as jsut a generic word for a TTRPG. it didn't matter what you were talking about online because putting in the keyword "D&D" would make Lycos, Yahoo, and others (before Google) return your website and game, and everyone just used D&D for a term to mean RPG.

i mean you have people everywhere that say "PF is D&D", jsut because they don't give a damn about being correct or truthful.

i have used this example int he past but it is like someone coming up to me talking about how they like D&D and would say maybe something about an Epic Destiny or such and i would have to tell them they don't exist, and they claim they ALWAYS existed in D&D.

name dropping the term "D&D" because it IS popular is the very reason 4th edition used the name, and they were proven wrong.

what you fail to understand when calling it niche is, that even niches have their popularity contests within them such as say Star Wars v Star Trek. you are confused thinking "pop" means EVERYONE has to agree. Miley Cyrus is a pop culture idol right now, but for those that don't like her kind of music, they could care less. likewise non-gamers could care less about D&D, but RPG players know it is the big dog (or was until PF...well look all that up and decide for yourself).

so yeah, those people that choose Pokemon as the card game they play vs MtG is usually younger, because the show is aimed at younger people and the game made for younger players. MtG is popular amongst card game players as a whole, but to non-card game players, its probably poker as the most popular game (or bridge? blackjack? baccarat?). and there are some Pokemon players that have bought MtG cards jsut to look popular to friends though never playing it, just trading the cards for Pokemon or Yugioh, or whatever they play.

so yeah, the fad followers have grown in numbers since the intenet has allowed more discussion, and the MOST discussion is about the "popular" game. in terms of RPGs, that is still D&D, even if it has the Pathfinder logo on it.

i have heard or seen the term ACKS many times on various forums but neither know nor care what it means, but if you say D&D you will find everyone will be able to mentioned WotC or TSR or Gygax.

so you tell me that when there way only D&D, WoD, and a few piddling others like (Shadowrun, GURPS, RIFTS) out there that D&D wasnt and isnt still the popular name to drop?

if it isnt then it is because people have learned to stop trying to name drop and accepted that they dont like D&D and dont need the name to enjoy an RPG and can play whatever they want.

THEN and ONLY THEN, can D&D return to be what it should rather than something that panders to the lowest common denominator and generates garbage like 4/E.

[deaddmwalking]

name dropping the term "D&D" because it IS popular is the very reason 4th edition used the name, and they were proven wrong.

No. WotC used the name 'D&D' because they own the name and it is a well-known brand (even by people who don't play it). It is true that D&D is used like a 'generic' version of RPG, but people in the South do the same thing with soda (everything is a Coke - then you have to specify which type of soda you want). They also used the term because it was another iteration of the game. Sequels typically use the name so you'll know what kinds of things you'll find. 4th edition isn't my cup of tea, but I know that in 4th edition you'll find clerics, wizards, beholders and illithids - because those things are part of D&D. It was would silly to call it 'Caverns and Crawlers' and then explain that it's 'like D&D except with different mechanics'. D&D is a shorthand for all kinds of things that TSR introduced.

THEN and ONLY THEN, can D&D return to be what it should rather than something that panders to the lowest common denominator and generates garbage like 4/E.

And what should it be? Because 1st edition exists. 2nd edition exists. 3rd edition exists. 4th edition exists. They all exist and you can play any version of the game with any combination of houserules at any time. The fact that there are additional competing similar products does not make it so you can't play the one you want - unless it means that you're in such a small minority that you can no longer find players.

[shadzar]

name dropping the term "D&D" because it IS popular is the very reason 4th edition used the name, and they were proven wrong.

No. WotC used the name 'D&D' because they own the name and it is a well-known brand

and this proves you are an idiot. you say no when you mean yes. "well-known brand" means popular brand. that is exactly what name-dropping is, thus why you don't hear much about d20 Future or d20 Modern.

do you really think a company that owns a name doesn't name drop just to sell product and live off the name rather than they product being good, or even related?

AD&D cross-stitch patterns and wood-burning kits would like to have a word with you.

[deaddmwalking]

Pet Rock isn't popular, but it is well-known.

[shadzar]

you do know what "pop culture" means right? it is the new term for "fads" because "fad" carried negative connotations. you know a "pet rock" was a fad from the 70s~80s... meaning it was "pop culture" from that era.

"pop culture" changes from year to year or even month to month, but that is the thing about fads, they are here today, gone tomorrow. the fact that something is/was "pop culture" is one of the reasons WHY it is well known. a "popular" thing to know or discuss.

damn kids today are raised so blind and naive.

[Zak S]

DEADDMWALKING:

I can't find a single case where your game SPECIFICALLY was attacked.

"I am an honest fuck who tells you that your method is not as good,"
--Kaelik, this thread, page 12

You, deadmwalking are wrong.

Again objectively.

Again in public.

And, I suspect, again, you won't admit it. I guess you think nobody will notice.

Now, deadmwalking you type "I am sorry, that was stupid, I take it back. This invalidates part of my argument (like the other lies and mistakes I made) and throws even more doubt on my reasoning ability. I should mend my ways."

he has also argued that anything he said up to this point that paints him in any kind of negative light is due to a failure on your part to understand what he really meant, so instead of responding to the content of his posts, you are required to ask clarifying questions until you understand what he was thinking, not what he said.

Incorrect.

If I say "I hate Rifts" you are REQURED to ask a clarifying question before assuming "Zak hates Palladium games"

If Kaelik says "Your method is not as good" you are NOT required to ask clarifying questions before assuming Kaelik thinks "your method is not as good."

I cannot mentally cross to be able to come to the conclusion that someone is 'shitty' because of posts they've made online about roleplaying games.

Oh this is easy:

Talking online about games is a valuable thing to do for some people? Yes/No

Well yes, you clearly value it and are doing it.

When doing it, there can be positive results that affect peoples' quality of life--games can be improved, facts can be spread, harmful illusions burst, etc..

i.e. Productive work can be accomplished.

People who lie or make accusations without checking to see if they have a basis on fact (like yourself) slow down a process which makes a positive difference in peoples' lives.

That's bad.

But Zak isn't really an advocate for rulings - since he codifies all of his rulings and refers back to them whenever they come up again, whatever time savings he THINKS he is achieving seems likely to be completely offset by potentially needing to refer to a giant book of every ruling ever made to maintain consistency.

The failure of your logic here is in the weasel-word "potentially"--if it turned out in practice that:

A) the rulings were hard to remember (which would be bad) and we had to refer back to the Rulings Notes all the time to make sure we got'em right
AND
B) these notes were more poorly organized than the printed rulebooks

...you'd have a point.

But neither of those things are true so you do not. And--creepily--you didn't check either of these things before making that accusation.



DSMATTICUS

To be as clear as possible, making rulings on the spot and promising to adhere to them in the future is not entirely the same as a rule-based system. It's actually much closer to the worst of both possible worlds, where you are promising to spend as little time and effort developing your rules as possible (downside of rulings) AND promising to end up with a rule base at least as difficult to remember and reference and likely considerably harder (downside of rules).

See answer above for the obvious mistake you made there.


DEADDMWALKING again

I'm not willing to review every single one of his rulings to see if there are any 'bad rules' or 'mediocre rules that could be improved' because:

1) BORING!!! I really do have better things to do than watch (or read) about other people playing D&D.
2) Any objective improvement will be dismissed as 'this worked for my table - YOU DON'T KNOW ME!'

Problems with the logic here:

A) The rulings don't have to be perfect, they just have to be _better for the game overall than stopping and looking up the rule in the book_ --if you ignore the time thing, you are AGAIN ignoring half the benefits of a ruling.

In general, the willingness of people in this discussion to take this statement:

"Making a midgame ruling and then moving on with the game is often better overall for my game, because of time saved or spent talking to the players rather than flipping through books"
and repeatedly strawman it into
"My midgame rulings are infallible and better than any that could ever be in a book"
suggest either grotesque stupidity or extreme trolling.
Y'all should rally stop.

B) re: 1--if you are too lazy to do the work to check whether your claim is correct them there's a way out: DON'T make the claim in the first place.

C) re: 2--you do not have to rely on my testimony to see if a given ruling worked better than looking a thing up. My players are available and dozens of hours of my game are taped. And, again:

If you are too lazy to do the work to check whether your claim is correct them there's a way out: DON'T make the claim in the first place.

If you consider "do not bear false witness" as an "impossibly difficult hoop" to jump through--take it up with your God.

And science.

PHONELOBSTER:

I'd argue the point, but like two posts ago you outright admitted that you ignored everything I requested because you weren't writing a mechanic for me (and also claim that would be impossible!) you were writing a mechanic that was "not for the critics".

Incorrect.

You fail to grasp the point of the difference between:

A RULING needs to work at the table it has been made for.

A RULE (in a printed book) needs to work for the people who read it in a book.

You asked for a RULING.

-
-
-

KAELIK

So for example, what bonus does something get? Totally made up by him on the spot. How long does the bonus last? Totally made up by him on the spot.

Yyyyyyyup. See answer above for why that works.

If you want an answer where the bonus isn't made up, you should've asked a more specific question.

You are now seriously trying to write in an additional mechanic where Superman doesn't get a bonus for asking for free soup. BUT he does get a bonus asking for your ARMS.

You're confused: in either case Superman isn't _asking_ . However if someone gave Superman their arms, he would recognize this as a significant show of goodwill and they'd get a bonus.

Duh.

Zak S's pathetic system still forces everyone to look up rules, and is purely shit, and based on his theory that 3 seconds of his brain operating creates perfect results that could not ever be improved in any way ever,

Straw argument.

You have ignored the time-saving element AGAIN.

Do not do that again.


NINEINCHNAIL

Even if they were, the proposal that "currencies whose continued supply that might be threatened by refusing a given request" includes all the various things listed in your above criteria is untenable.

The sheer complexity involved in social networks is mind shattering

This is why you only calculate the bonus backwards from a given request and only calculate it relative to other competing interests.

In other words, you don't have to take into account all factors, merely all the interests that weren't already canceling each other out before the request was made.

Being altruistic does not require that the only requests one makes be motivated by necessity

You missed 2 points, point one is: the request granter does not know whether the request is motivated by necessity or not or whether delaying to find that out would create a problem
and point two is: even if that were true, it doesn't negate all the other points made about the system.

[Mistborn]

Zak you have reached the point where the only appropriate response to you posts is scorn and mocking image macros or in other words

[virgil]

I can't find a single case where your game SPECIFICALLY was attacked.

"I am an honest fuck who tells you that your method is not as good,"
--Kaelik, this thread, page 12

How dare someone say that you're not perfect?! The cad!

You seriously hold the opinion that your each of your rulings are easier to remember than any official rule that it replaces? That you keep your notes better organized and referable than any printed RPG book? I thought it was kind of generous for him to describe it as 'potentially', but you're apparently taking it as an offensive assumption. How can anyone not see that as the height of hubris?

Problems with the logic here:

A) The rulings don't have to be perfect, they just have to be _better for the game overall than stopping and looking up the rule in the book_ --if you ignore the time thing, you are AGAIN ignoring half the benefits of a ruling

Since consistency is paramount, you need either perfect recall OR your notes are better organized than any book. The former is impossible, while the latter requires you to place incredible value in the difference in time in referring to the two sources. A disproportionate value, IMO. This isn't even counting the idea that for any system, your notes are superior to any professional editor or layout designer.

The only other option requires you to place such a low bar for yourself that not getting punched in the face after/during a game (metaphorically) makes you go "why mess with success?"

In other words, you don't have to take into account all factors, merely all the interests that weren't already canceling each other out before the request was made.

You do realize that you'd have to make evaluations on everything for this to happen? Two things can't cancel each other out unless you decide that they are equal and opposite in value, which is itself a calculation. But of course, this doesn't matter, because you're essentially doing a DM-handwave on the whole thing; as you seem to place the time in referring to a rulebook as a death sentence for the game.

If someone's not quitting your game (or even outwardly complaining) over a ruling, then it's of equal value to a rule that is comparatively more consistent, fair, and better designed. The only reason you'd place the ruling as superior to the rule in this instance would be for either you or the player(s) to despise opening the rulebook in the middle of a game; whether it's lack of attention span or you saw some bad games where the DM/group spent an entire session debating the rules instead of playing the game (and you swore 'never again') or look at the rules as incredibly beneath you or something I'm not understanding.

[deaddmwalking]

DEADDMWALKING:

I can't find a single case where your game SPECIFICALLY was attacked.

"I am an honest fuck who tells you that your method is not as good,"
--Kaelik, this thread, page 12

You, deadmwalking are wrong.

Again objectively.

Again in public.

And, I suspect, again, you won't admit it. I guess you think nobody will notice.

You are quite a body of work. Firstly, you've asserted that at that point, nobody was talking about YOUR ACTUAL GAME because they did not ask clarifying questions - they were responding to a misunderstood version of your game that seemed like a reasonable interpretation based on your description. If someone was attacking a version of your game that you don't play than they weren't attacking your game.

You've also removed all context from the quote.

"Training wheels" is, like "Magical Tea Party", not a derogatory term.

Hearing "Training wheels" is the rhetorical price of saying "Magical Tea Party"

No, both of them are derogatory terms, the difference is that I am an honest fuck who tells you that your method is not as good, and you are a dishonest fuck who lies and says you believe that everything is equal, but still calls other games shit.

It's also worth pointing out that in that section of the discussion, you were accused of dismissing or actively deriding other play styles. Kaelik was talking about his personal opinions about a 'rulings not rules' game. While that may not be the style you play (I've consistently referred to your style as 'rulings as rules'). Your claims that a ruling is 'faster' than finding the rule seems inconsistent with your claim that once you make a ruling, you use it consistently from that point forward. Since the rules appear too extensive to easily recall, I would assume that for most people, remembering all of the rulings with perfect recall would be similarly difficult. Now, if you make rulings and don't bother to remember them, your 'speed of play' argument would seem to make sense, but as a preference I prefer consistency (for reasons).

You've tried to invalidate any preference for consistency by insisting that is something you provide (despite all of the difficulties for extensively cataloging these rulings in an easy to reference format) while simultaneously claiming the benefit to using the rulings is how much faster they are. I haven't been able to reconcile the two - and as far as preference, I could see going with one or the other - but going with both really does seem like the worst of all possible worlds.

If you missed the part where I'm not claiming an objective truth but just speaking to preference, I'll lay it out. There are some 'if' statements that would be objectively true. IF your rulings take longer than looking up the rules (which seems plausible if the rules are well laid out and easy to reference YOU DO NOT benefit in time savings over making a ruling. IF your ruling is WORSE for your table than the rule as written, whatever benefit you realize in terms of time savings are eroded or possibly REVERSED depending on how bad your rule compares.

Now, if you're not making the claim that your rulings are always faster than looking up the rules and you're also NOT claiming that your rules are always better than the rules as written (which I think admitting clearly would go a long way toward making the people here a little more friendly) it might be worth considering whether you're really benefitting as much from your 'rulings' as you think you are.

I really don't care who you are, or how good your games are - if you're not willing to admit that your games could POTENTIALLY be better, you're delusional. What form that improvement might take is open for discussion and will certainly have to include table preferences - but from your statements so far, it sounds like you'd prefer to use the rules if you could easily remember them all. Since some people have no trouble remembering all the rules as they come up (at least, considering the collective memory of the entire group), it seems that you're advocating using the rules (if you remember them) as the preferred method. Feel free to correct me.

[PhoneLobster]

YOUR NAME IN CAPITAL LETTERS!

You're confused: in either case Superman isn't _asking_ . However if someone gave Superman their arms, he would recognize this as a significant show of goodwill and they'd get a bonus.

Er. No. Your mechanic makes even LESS sense if you reverse it like that.

Because your mechanic is based on a "rational" assessment of CONTINUED supply of the gift and the interaction with the request.

Your rule (which is what a ruling you stick to becomes you deceitful dolt), was that characters assess whether refusing a request threatens the FUTURE supply of the PAST gift. Which is broken on so many levels.

If we ignore for a minute the "only checks refusal result for continued supply" which we need to because it's fucking insane... AND if we ignore the "actually checks for supply from all sources" bit, because again, we need to because that is fucking insane too, we get...

Superman assesses that Soup provider may provide more soup in future. Soup provider gets soup bonus.

Superman assesses that armless girl is physically unable to provide any further pairs of arms in future. Armless girl does NOT get arms as gift bonus.

There is no "just invert who is asking for what and ignore every fucking thing I or anyone else has said about any examples at all" that magically fixes your broken mechanic. Even charitably ignoring several levels of poorly written nonsense it STILL doesn't work. It doesn't come CLOSE to working.