Your Rule Sucks: The Zak S Social Currency Edition

[Ancient History]

38. So when there's a design problem which pits (A) increasing computational simplicity vs. (B) reduced abuse potential, the person advocating for A has a real but unmeasurable pointand person advocating for B has a real and measurable point?

If you can't quantify it, then yep. Sometimes you can quantify it.

That is person B can always claim objectivity and A can't but A still has a point--is that what you're saying?

Rather like 2 engineers arguing about making a car uglier (subjective) yet more reliable (objective)? Is that what you think?

The engineers would probably try to come up with an objective scale for ugliness, but you've got the gist of it. How pretty a rule is is subjective, whether it is mechanically better or worse is not.

…So that gets into the definition of "abused"...

I feel a reductio ad dictionary coming on.

39. How is that different from what Charm could do? The consequence in the end is the same. and the amount of work the PC had to do to get the consequence was far greater.

Charm spell, as we have said many many times, allows a saving throw. It at least allows an opportunity for the character to resist. The overwhelming bonus against a static target number does not allow that.

Put this another way, in reference to your disarm rule: What if a master swordsman did not want to be disarmed? What, under your rule, can they possibly do to avoid it?

40. (huge) What kind of incredibly shitty GM loses one king and it ruins his whole campaign? If your campaign is that fragile: do not ever GM. Positing a GM who could lose a villain or king (or even a god) and the campaign grinds to a halt is like positing an iliterate GM: it's asking me to design a rule for a group lacking the basics you need to play a game. No GM worth their salt would be thrown by that.

Consider, oh, Camelot. Or the God-Emperor from Warhammer 40K. There are many settings where certain NPCs are fairly fundamental. Now, maybe the GM can roll with the consequences and maybe they're going to have to call for a break so they can weep over their campaign notes and slam a beer like B.A. from Knights of the Dinner Table. But you wanted an example, there you go.

41. Why on earth would you think I'd designed a rule fit to be used by such an extremely incompetent group?

Why on earth would you think you'd designed a rule fit to be used by any competent group? The issue is not, in the infinite possibilities of the universe, the rule will ever be abused - only that the potential is there.

42. If God King values that service provided so much (something worth 1/10th of his entire good will) why wouldn't he want to give the PC his sword?

I already went into this in the extremely hypothetical example.

43. As Charm--why would the GM design an NPC whose range of possible available (non-magicked) behavior included things he didn't want that NPC (un-magicked) to do?

That's a strange sort of argument; most NPCs aren't pre-programmed robots that can only do a few set functions and only give certain rote responses to inputs. This isn't a JRPG where the PCs ask questions off a menu or anything. The whole point of tabletop RPGs is a greater level of interaction with characters and the play environment.

44. Do you see this particular rule as going beyond a stylistic agreement? Because right now all I see is a rule that doesn't work if you assume a GM who can't even handle Charm.

And as we've pointed out, repeatedly, in detail, though you tend to ignore it, that charm is not an equivalent ability because charm allows a saving throw (also, charm is not available to all characters, but let's focus on the biggie). You're not comparing apples to oranges, you're comparing potatoes to watermelons.

(I don't have any podcasts of my games)

Really? I could have sworn I saw a video of it somewhere up on the web. My bad then.

45. So how can you describe a result as inevitable (mutual disarm) (which you did) if you accept that it doesn't always happen? That's a contradiction. Inevitable means it always happens.

I'm going to need to ask for a link to me saying "inevitable." I don't recall saying that.

I offered my recorded games as proof if you doubt the veracity of it.

I knew I'd seen a recording of your game.

you attacked me names right outta the box without even establishing any kind of complaint I could address.

I really didn't.

You did. After a rational back and forth suddenly here:
http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=55 ... &start=150
…after no insult to you and no undeserved insult to anyone else you say I am "having a shitting fit" when all I'm doing is what you're supposed to do on the RPG internet--find people who don't think the same thing as you and figure out why that is. You say "shitting fit" when I did fuck-all to you and you don't even ask to confirm whatever image this is attack is supposed to mean?

"Shitting fit" isn't calling names; I think it's a pretty accurate description of someone that spends the better part of six pages on a rant, refusing to admit he's wrong about anything, and accusing all and sundry of being liars and idiots. Hell, lest we forget you questioned my intelligence long before I ever typed "Why are you having a shitting fit" - at worst it's a bit of hyperbole for your blatantly insulting behavior.

I mean, if you want to get into who-called-who names first: Zoom in. Oh look, you called me stupid and a liar first.

46. Quote the alleged time or times before "shitting fit" I did that. Because I haven't said a single bad faith thing here ever--it wouldn't serve any purpose to say things I don't believe.

Dipping down into the well and pulling out a post at random, there's this. It's not the first time you've belittled someone in that thread-which-started-it-all, but it's a fairly blatant example of you trying to change the subject by insulting and attacking one of the people in the conversation, and focusing on examples (in this case, an example you came up with which no-one else used) instead of actually addressing the topic. When you can't stick to the topic or take a break from it to insult the person you're talking to, that's not trying to resolve the argument - that's bad faith, and you've demonstrated it in plenty.

You assumed ignorance of obvious facts (like you kept telling my group isn't representative of all groups after I wrote that myself about 20 times),

You keep saying this. I'm not sure where you're getting it. I did say that because your rule worked for your group doesn't mean it works for any other group. That doesn't mean your group is representative; it's actually pretty much the opposite. Your group might well be exceptional.

47. WHY did you assume I needed to be told this very basic fact when I've maintained it since my first post on this subject all those months ago? (This is the 4th time I've asked you this question) And why are you reiterating it again now?

Why do YOU keep bringing it up? I've never said your group was typical or representative, that's just a point you keep asking me about for like four questions now. It is not, and has never, been germane to the conversation at hand.

48. Quote me doing that to you. Find the question I didn't answer, pre-"shitting fit" (when you lost the right to complain). If I didn't answer it, it was a mistake and I'll answer it now if you need the answer.

Do I get to pick an arbitrary point before you were belligerent and get to ignore everything after that? Because I think I've been a fairly good sport so far.

and answers,

ignoring an answer is not a fault unless the person again later begs the same question that was an answer to.

49. If you believe I ever did that to you: quote me.

Please scroll up to earlier in this post concerning "charm spells allow a saving throw," which we've addressed repeatedly and at length and which I believe you've never acknowledged and keep ignoring because you continually bring the same point up again.

and you often seem to mistake some of the statements you've made as asking questions when they really aren't.

That isn't an ethical fault.

I still consider it a personal failing, however.

Simple basic human communication and journalistic ethics: before you assume an insulting thing about someone you have an open channel to, you ask a question to make sure you have all the details right.

1) No one considered it (and here I'm going to reach back all the way to the original MTP thread) insulting to you until you showed up and had a hissy-cow about it. It was a subject for debate, no more and no less. It wasn't personal until you made it personal.

2) You put it out there. You published it to the internet. When you do that, you open yourself up for criticism. If you put up a fucking painting for sale in a gallery and someone writes an essay on it, that doesn't mean they need to check with you first to make sure they've gotten your intent right.

3) We're not journalists! Journalistic ethics don't apply! And don't give me any "basic human communication ethics" crapola, you've been accusing a lot of intelligent, moral, educated people of being liars, morons, and simpletons based on the fact that they don't agree with you. Did you take the time to PM any of them and make sure you weren't misinterpreting their posts before you insulted them? 'cause I know you sure as hell didn't do it with me.

[codeGlaze]

I think it's informative that in sixteen fucking pages of this clusterfuck (and this being round three at that), I think this is literally the first unfair accusation made against Zak.

Fine. Given my track record thus far, I bloody quit trying to make an opinion on rules. So I am done with trying to make a contribution in various discussions. I will continue attempting to make my own stuff and put them up, even if they're failures more often than not, but that's it.

I think you may be interpretting that wrong...

I read it as a criticism of eyeballhead, not you.

[zugschef]

I've got the biggest dick on this planet. It must be true, my girlfriend said so.

[infected slut princess]

your dick is so small you thought you had your first pubic hair until you pissed out of it.

[Scrivener]

if there are actions that NPCs will refuse to take no matter what the PCs do, what point is there in PCs using social abilities?

Because PCs often want the NPCs to do things they could do but are currently apathetic about prioritizing them or doing them NOW or at the PCs convenience or to the PCs instead of to another target. Again: you probably COULD go to the movies right now (it's in your range of acceptable behaviors--you probably have not taken a "no movie" vow) but you don't have to. If a person used a charisma roll, then you might decide "Ok, I'll do that now".

A job interview is a simple example: picking Fran is within their range of possible behaviors. Picking Ed is, too. The PC (Fran) can use her bonus to insure it is her, now, rather than Ed.

The issue I see is that you can't convince Fran to hire a second person. If you limit the course of actions to "what they were going to do anyway" then you are keeping the PCs from doing anything meaningful.

With your job interview example: Calvin the Capitalist is hiring a new factory worker. Franz the farmer, Alice the alleyrat, and Una the urchin are all applying for the job and they are all living hand to mouth. The PCs want all three of them to get the job, so they lobby Calvin. Your system says the PCs can influence who gets hired, not how many. That seems like a fine distinction, how do you determine where that line is?

Also lets go with a different example- Mark the miserly miller keeps anyone from using his mill without paying his comically high fee. Mark is a NE selfish prick who would gladly sell his mother to the highest bidder if he hadn't already. The PCs need to use the mill for whatever reason. Letting someone use the mill for free is reasonably outside of Mark's range of acceptable behavior. The PCs knowing they can't afford Mark's fees start to do things that help Mark indirectly in hopes of getting on his good side, and improve their chances at success with a social roll, via your system. Since the desired action (use the mill for free) is outside of his acceptable behavior nothing the PCs can do will allow them to succeed. In this case what does your system do? It seems to be the DM decides what an NPC will do, and the PC's rolls and actions can never influence that.

Is there some sort of standard that is beyond "acceptable behaviors"? Is there some middle ground you can define that keeps everyone from being either immune to PC influence, or makes everyone have a very tangible price?

making switching between statblocks take seconds at most.

The fuck you're seriously saying that in a world with miraculous things like the d20SRD or even a fucking bookmarks that looking up a number on a monsters statblock is this huge burden? Even if it's a number you might need to reference anyway for other PC actions. Why the fuck do you even own RPG books then?

Why do you own a watch or a phone if you don't check it every 3 seconds? Because you like to use it, just less than every 3 seconds.

This wasn't me, you might want to fix that.

[Red_Rob]

"Rob, there is something you don't seem to be getting here. Just because you put on a suit and it fits you does not mean your suit fits well. "

Do explain, Rob, with all possible eloquence (because frankly, we've been here a million times and the person making your side of the argument generally explodes into invective at this point rather than explaining what they think), how you judge quality without reference to an audience if 2 different audiences want 2 different things?

Or is it just that some audiences matter more than others, Rob?

So in light of this astounding revelation you had that people like different things, you take that to mean that nothing can ever be objectively reviewed. Film criticism, literary criticism, all these things are worthless because "different audiences want different things"? At least Roger Ebert was lucky enough to pass before he had to learn that his entire life's work was a pointless waste of time, eh?

Oh wait, that's bullshit.

It turns out there are generally agreed on principles that allow works to be critiqued. Movies are expected to have character development, plot, tension and a narrative arc because that is what most audiences want. And guess what? RPG rules are expected to work within their respective systems, incentivise behaviour in line with their design goals, not lead to degenerate outcomes out of line with other systems in the game, and express at least some measure of verisimilitude with the chosen game setting.

So, given these baseline criteria that we are measuring against, please enlighten us as to which of them your hypothetical group eschews. Are they ecstatic when a rule doesn't interact with the rest of the ruleset? Do they cry tears of joy when a rule allows a degenerate outcome?

Zak, the root of your issue seems to be you conflate "rule" with a lengthy & complicated procedure and "ruling" with something simple and easy to remember. Well, a rule is just a ruling you thought about beforehand! Rules can be simple and concise. Rulings can be overcomplicated and slow down play. Nothing about making a rule up mid session makes it any more likely to be fast or fun, in fact it makes it more likely that there will be unforeseen interactions with other rules because you don't have time to check everything out. I could even understand if you said that you made up rulings to save time with the understanding that they weren't set in stone, but you also claim to write every one down and use it henceforth!

You are literally claiming that reading a rulebook takes too much time so instead you make up a rulebook and write that down for everyone to read instead. This is the claim that everyone has a beef with, and if you can't understand why then your brain must be broken. Although with the weird numbering thing you have going on in your posts and your habit of criticising people for things you then immediately do yourself that might explain a few things.

[fectin]

Please, continue explaining how the reliability of cars is a clear, objective measurement. I love listening to lay explanations of difficult technical subjects - they're as endearing as evangelical Scientologists.

[Sakuya Izayoi]

God forbid someone explode into invective, such as

You asked for it, Shit-for-Brains

[Kaelik]

Please, continue explaining how the reliability of cars is a clear, objective measurement. I love listening to lay explanations of difficult technical subjects - they're as endearing as evangelical Scientologists.

At least people don't talk about cars that often.

Everyone wants to make a law analogy, even when they have no idea wtf they are talking about.

[fectin]

You'd be surprised when you broaden it to engineering in general, but yes: I am deeply sympathetic.

[DSMatticus]

Because I haven't said a single bad faith thing here ever--it wouldn't serve any purpose to say things I don't believe.

You once said on this message board that admitted internet trolls forfeit all human rights and shouldn't be rendered potentially life saving medical care if they needed it. Do you stand by that statement, or (what I find more likely) in a moment of frustration did you say something you didn't believe?

Game On,
fbmf

The odds of getting him to actually answer this criticism are very slim. One of the benefits of having what must be fifty fucking pages of argument combined by this point is that if you press him on an issue he does not want to be pressed on, he will just ignore you in favor of the bajillion other posts or deliberately bring up something else that he feels he can wordsalad his way out of.

So when Frank pointed out that even if Zak insists on defending his shitty rule, it still very obviously did not meet the explicit design criteria laid out in the challenge Zak accepted, Zak... did not respond at all, and instead brought up another argument from two to three dozen pages ago and demanded that Frank continue that argument first.

Or when he was caught deriding playstyles he didn't care for after spending those same fifty fucking pages arguing that it is unfair to levy criticisms against a playstyle because of the subjective nature of people's preferences (for what is apparently not the first time), he... said nothing at all, and just responded to other things.

And there's still this exchange (bolding mine for emphasis):

You have given no such rule that 1 is an automatic failure.

I don't but D&D does. Jesus: what game have you been playing all these years?

3rd edition and later got rid of nat 1's and nat 20's on ability checks and skill checks. You could have been playing D&D for fourteen years at this point and not have ever played a game in which, by the rules, charisma checks had nat 1's. Now, I can understand why you made the mistake, since you to seem to prefer older editions. But it's a mistake nonetheless. Perhaps you should be more precise or less conceited?

#1: I would like for Zak S to comment on his being factually wrong that 1's are auto-failures on ability and skill checks. Zak since you have access to the internet, can check the SRD, and are very keen on people apologizing when incorrect I wonder if you would like to comment on you using factually incorrect information in your defense.

Since when are my rules the SRD?

I don't but D&D does. Jesus: what game have you been playing all these years?

So were you lying then or are you lying now.

D&D does not equal the D20 SRD. If dipshit doesn't know about autofails I'm not gonna go and dig up which book they come from. He can go find it.

Also, minor quibble: every edition of D&D that has roll-under ability checks I'm aware of had failures on nat 20's, not nat 1's. Because on roll-under, 1 is the exact opposite of very bad. So it's not like we can't call you wrong for that, anyways.

Autofails don't happen on a 1 with Charisma checks if it's 2nd edition or earlier. Autofails don't happen at all with ability checks if it's 3rd edition or later.

Is there a point here? Are you suggesting we play R.A.W. ? LOL. I mean, seriously, I thought you were claiming to be a grown-up.

It begins with Zak S trying to make fun of virgil for not knowing D&D's rules. When it is pointed out to Zak that no edition of D&D has the rules he's using, he claims he meant his houserules all along. Which means... Zak was making fun of virgil for not knowing Zak's houserules, I guess? Does that make any fucking sense? Not in the least. If you actually try to trace Zak's arguments through these threads (which is something of a daunting task, given their sheer size and Zak's gish gallop style of debate), you'll find that he just fucking changes them all the time as it suits him.

The tl;dr is that Zak will basically say anything in order to avoid admitting fault. He is neither honest nor consistent. He will change his arguments, move his goalposts, ignore arguments that he doesn't want to respond to while demanding that people respond only to the arguments he wants them to respond to, and do any fucking thing he can think of to avoid admitting fault. He is an actively deceitful and manipulative debater. We've had a lot of shitty posters, but I don't think I've ever seen anyone for whom intentional deceit is such a comfortably used tool.

[Sakuya Izayoi]

He also has a tendency to use "Denner" as if the same hivemind embodied both Frank and shadzar.

[wotmaniac]

Incorrect. This thing started with me seeing a trackback on my blog to someone getting my rules wrong and me politely correcting them:

http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=54 ... sc&start=0

…and then several people going apeshit for no reason.

People when apeshit because YOU initiated unfair/denigrating mis-characterizations ... on the 3rd page of that very thread that you've so wittingly linked. Everything was going just fine until then -- that's the point when this whole thing went sideways. That's right, YOU initiated that shit -- YOU brought all this down on your own head.
As much as I hate repeating myself, I'm gonna do it anyway:

No. Just no. Fuck you. Fuck you hard, and fuck you long, and fuck you to the depths of your non-existent soul.
You do NOT get to get away with injecting this bullshit anywhere in this thread. YOU [started this]. YOU went out of your way put it on display here. You do NOT get to try to wiggle out from underneath this. This whole thing started with YOU

I accept your gracious request to be permitted to back down from your bet.

Psst -- I think you got your pronouns backwards.
Seriously though .... this is obviously some serious-ass intentional trolling right here. It's gotta be. No one who has the mental capacity to turn on a computer, log in to a password-protected website, and post words on to a forum, could possibly say something like this straight-faced. It just can't happen.
But just for the record:

So you're totally wrong on all points. Again: unless you are admitting to arguing in bad faith--address all this stuff.
[...]
you did the bad faith mistranslation thing again and should stop
[...]
You assumed I was being dishonest--i.e. assuming bad faith. You have no right to demand anything after that. After you do that, the bets are off.
[...]
You assumed bad faith. You ...
[...]
Because I haven't said a single bad faith thing here ever--it wouldn't serve any purpose to say things I don't believe.
[...]
It is not a rhetorical question. Stop assuming bad faith.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record:

No. Just no. Fuck you. Fuck you hard, and fuck you long, and fuck you to the depths of your non-existent soul.
You do NOT get to get away with injecting this bullshit anywhere in this thread. YOU [started this]. YOU went out of your way put it on display here. You do NOT get to try to wiggle out from underneath this. This whole thing started with YOU

Seriously -- fuck the fuck off. This kinda shit if flat-out un-fucking-acceptable. What fucking planet do you have to come from in order to actually think this kind of fucktarded behavior is even remotely acceptable?

Go back to your hole, and never climb out again.

BTW, fbmf really does deserve for you to address this:

Because I haven't said a single bad faith thing here ever--it wouldn't serve any purpose to say things I don't believe.

You once said on this message board that admitted internet trolls forfeit all human rights and shouldn't be rendered potentially life saving medical care if they needed it. Do you stand by that statement, or (what I find more likely) in a moment of frustration did you say something you didn't believe?

Game On,
fbmf

---

@fectin:

Please, continue explaining how the reliability of cars is a clear, objective measurement. I love listening to lay explanations of difficult technical subjects - they're as endearing as evangelical Scientologists.

There are indeed matrices that can be used for that kind of things.
As long as the main thrust is adequately communicated, then nitpicking lay-speak for the purpose of nitpicking lay-speak is some elitist bullshit -- leave it be.
Just sayin'.
(if I've misunderstood your point, please correct me)

Zak provided a rule that created modifiers to social rolls.

Just a nitpick -- he actually didn't even go that far. He simply listed some guidelines for how create some rules that could govern how to go about generating said modifiers.
At least, that's what I've gotten out of it.

[Zak S]

ANCIENT HiSTORY:

"38. So when there's a design problem which pits (A) increasing computational simplicity vs. (B) reduced abuse potential, the person advocating for A has a real but unmeasurable pointand person advocating for B has a real and measurable point?"

"If you can't quantify it, then yep. Sometimes you can quantify it."

"Rather like 2 engineers arguing about making a car uglier (subjective) yet more reliable (objective)? Is that what you think?"

"The engineers would probably try to come up with an objective scale for ugliness, but you've got the gist of it. How pretty a rule is is subjective, whether it is mechanically better or worse is not. "

50. So Chess is a better game than D&D if you want to only use the objective scale. Chess has less potential for abuse than D&D in any form yet created. Correct? I mean the swordfight of 2 swordsmen that goes "initiative roll to hit, miss, roll to hit, miss, intiiative, roll to hit, damage, cross off number, roll to hit, damage" and that's all they do or say is totally a possibility using D&D and that's more boring than all the consequences you've described. That's the mechanics allowing for a boring outcome.

51. You assert "too much math/flipping" is subjective and "abusable" is objective. Could be true. But really you're not claiming "abusable" you're claiming "too abusable" correct? Because otherwise you'd have to admit Charm (and many other D&D rules you would use) are "abusable". Almost any D&D rule can be abused. It's the probability for abuse you're judging. Correct?

"Charm spell, as we have said many many times, allows a saving throw. It at least allows an opportunity for the character to resist. The overwhelming bonus against a static target number does not allow that. "

52. You've referred to this defense many times as if it mattered and I can't think for the life of me why. A saving throw roll is (in many if not all cases) less defense for the target than:
-knowing the PC is coming (with their many favors or intimidations)
-requiring the PC perform actions of significant worth to the NPC
-already having a good enough relationship with the NPC that they accept the gifts/services
-reducing the effect down to a roll for each request
and
-having to compete with every single other claimant to the defender's attention
and
-having to put the NPC in a position where your contribution is significant even when placed against the contributions of all other competitors

…in your god-king example you completely ignored all the other NPCs in the world who would want that god-king's sword.

If you could, can you narrate (in more plausible detail) 2 situations one with Charm and one with my mechanic that takes into effect all of the considerations actually in the rule that shows how the overall end effect of the PCs being able to take this Very Likely Action after doing a lot of work is more abusable than he PCs being able to just Charm the target with a successful save.

Also, in your example, the consequence was not that bad--a dead king. The game didn't necessarily get boring, it likely got more chaotic and interesting. So your example will need a consequence that is boring--something tedious like using one spell to get past all traps ever.

"Put this another way, in reference to your disarm rule: What if a master swordsman did not want to be disarmed? What, under your rule, can they possibly do to avoid it? "

Example, AD&D. Let's charitably (very charitably to you) assume the Master Swordsman got to be a Master Swordsman with a Dex of only 12. Anything less could reasonably be construed as an obviously exploitable weakness the enemy is clever to target.

So their AC is 12. 9th level is the point where the student has what might begin to be considered to have an Overwhelming Advantage to hit AC 12 (they, at that point, need only a 4 or better, before that they needed at least a 6, which I wouldn't consider overhwhelming).

The Master must be at least 11th level then. (Both student and master fall into the same fighter multiple attacks bracket for post-Unearthed Arcana AD&D).

So we got the lowest plausible Dex for a Master Swordsman, we got the lowest plausible level for the student (9th level--which is already an amazing fucking hero whose player been probably been playing AD&D at least once a week for a year. That's charitable--I got an AD&D level 9 after…2 or 3 years.) And we have the lowest possible difference between student and alleged master.

If the Master was prioritizing not being disarmed, they could use the Fight Defensively rule for one of his attacks (both combatants get an extra attack every other round). (+4 to AC). Now the student needs an 8 or better and the advantage isn't overwhelming, it's just a good tactic targeting the Master's barely-above-average dexterity. The Master on the other hand needs only a 2 to disarm the student if they have the same dex (12) and an 8 to disarm a max dex (18) student. And a master who has the experience vs a student who has the innate agility should look like that.

That's just the simplest example. The master could do other, cooler stuff, too. Like tie the sword on a short thin cord to their wrist.

Anyway: that is a scenario I find acceptable. If you do not, that isn't an objective assessment by you, that's just your taste talking. You want level (having played more D&D) to create a bigger difference faster than I do.

"What kind of incredibly shitty GM loses one king and it ruins his whole campaign? "

"Consider, oh, Camelot. Or the God-Emperor from Warhammer 40K. There are many settings where certain NPCs are fairly fundamental."
A game is not a novel. If you can't handle the players killing the God-Emperor or King Arthur, I would submit you're not a good GM. If you assume that level of incompetence: No, I can't make a rule for you. I sure wish PhoneLobster had told me he assumes a cretin for a GM.

"Why on earth would you think you'd designed a rule fit to be used by any competent group? "

53. Do you agree that a competent GM is essential equipment, like dice?

"
The issue is not, in the infinite possibilities of the universe, the rule will ever be abused - only that the potential is there. "

54. Then all of D&D is abusable, right?

55. Again in case you missed it: Are you trying to prove "abusability period"? or "a subjective level of abusability Ancient History considers unacceptable"?

"43. As Charm--why would the GM design an NPC whose range of possible available (non-magicked) behavior included things he didn't want that NPC (un-magicked) to do?"

"That's a strange sort of argument; most NPCs aren't pre-programmed robots that can only do a few set functions and only give certain rote responses to inputs. This isn't a JRPG where the PCs ask questions off a menu or anything. The whole point of tabletop RPGs is a greater level of interaction with characters and the play environment."

55. Are you saying that you assume all NPCs are infinitely malleable?


56. Do you design NPCs knowing that (absent magic) there are things they will never do?

57. Did you know I did?

"(I don't have any podcasts of my games)"

"Really? I could have sworn I saw a video of it somewhere up on the web. My bad then."

I do have videos, if they're now available as podcasts that's news to me. But that's not important.

" 45. So how can you describe a result as inevitable (mutual disarm) (which you did) if you accept that it doesn't always happen? That's a contradiction. Inevitable means it always happens."


"I'm going to need to ask for a link to me saying "inevitable." I don't recall saying that. "

"And from that simulationist level, it fails - because most sword fights, both in real life and fiction, do not end with the master swordsmen disarming each other and continuing on with tooth and fist. "

You claimed that the rule would ("most" of the time) lead to this consequence, when really it is one of many possible. Swordmen considering a strike to disarm or one person getting disarmed is actually a fairly common thing.

58. Do you contend this mutual disarmament result would happen "most" of the time?

59. If so, prove it. If not, what did you mean?

""Shitting fit" isn't calling names; I think it's a pretty accurate description of someone that spends the better part of six pages on a rant, refusing to admit he's wrong about anything, and accusing all and sundry of being liars and idiots. "

"shitting fit" is still an insult and you insulted me based on bad premises:
You think I called someone a liar wrongly without evidence but didn't think to ask for that evidence?
Instant chewtoy.
You think I called someone an idiot without evidence but didn't think to ask for that evidence?
Instant chewtoy.
Plus you call refusing to agree with people I actually disagree with (yes, I could agree with the moron who thinks Doyle doesn't exist or the guy who thinks no altruistic behavior could ever happen or that most swordfights would end in mutual disarmament but then we'd both be wrong, instead of just you--bad outcome) a moral failing worthy of talking smack
Also you decided my rational defense was a "rant" which is a word that means "saying a lot of things that aren't Ancient History's opinion"

"Dipping down into the well and pulling out a post at random, there's this. It's not the first time you've belittled someone in that thread-which-started-it-all, but it's a fairly blatant example of you trying to change the subject by insulting and attacking one of the people in the conversation, and focusing on examples (in this case, an example you came up with which no-one else used) instead of actually addressing the topic. When you can't stick to the topic or take a break from it to insult the person you're talking to, that's not trying to resolve the argument - that's bad faith, and you've demonstrated it in plenty."

Good example: it is none of those things.
A): it's totally on topic--Kaelik says something, I respond directly.

B)The only part of his comment I didn't respond directly to is

"See, this is why I hate whiny shits who talk about "to each their own" without fail you always actually mean "don't criticize me, but actually, yeah, the way you play the game is shitty and you are a loser."" Which is a meaningless assumption (assuming an answer to the question he just asked before waiting for an answer) and personal attack. If I had responded to it, would that have made you happy?

C) As you can see, it starts with Kaelik contrasting my game with "games that are tactically challenging while focusing on player agency" which is disgusting even by itself.

D) MOST IMPORTANTLY: If you thought I was attempting to change the subject (I like the subject, why would I change it?) then the appropriate thing to do would be to as me questions to establish my motives, not lurk and then spring this retroactive judgment on me months later.

60. Which of those words do you think I did not mean? Quote me.

61. Are you saying that when I get attacked and called names, that attempting to address that attack is "changing the subject"?

"Please scroll up to earlier in this post concerning "charm spells allow a saving throw," which we've addressed repeatedly and at length and which I believe you've never acknowledged and keep ignoring because you continually bring the same point up again. "

As we've established above, I don't understand why you think a saving throw is somehow a better defense than all the things that have to happen in order for my mechanic to have the Charm effect on someone. I haven't ignored that--I have asked repeatedly for you to clarify it and am still asking now.

So, same question again:

"
ignoring an answer is not a fault unless the person again later begs the same question that was an answer to.

49. If you believe I ever did that to you: quote me."

"I still consider it a personal failing, however. "

Yeah and I consider a billion things you do a personal failing but I'm only sticking to things that I can prove and that get in the way of fact finding.


" Do I get to pick an arbitrary point before you were belligerent and get to ignore everything after that? Because I think I've been a fairly good sport so far."

I don't know what this is meant to mean. As soon as you say "shitting fit" you lose the right to complain. If you would like a question answered, you can ask.

"No one considered it (and here I'm going to reach back all the way to the original MTP thread) insulting to you until you showed up and had a hissy-cow about it."

If you (and Archmage) did not know that this:
"This is awesome for a "power fantasy" game and totally shits all over players who are into it for a tactical thinking exercise where your choices are supposed to matter. "

Saying my game "shits" on players--my own players, and myself--is an insult then you have now been informed. Also, me explaining to Archmage all the things he got wrong is not a "hissy cow". Also if you thought all these things, your private messages of polite counsel at that time to me seem, in retrospect, exceptionally smarmy and dishonest.

In fact, I'd say this is the headshot for this whole damn discussion. Archmage got some details of my game wrong and said it "shit" on people and then I came in and explained the actual details and you think Archmage is blameless. That means you're out of your mind. He's not allowed to make such an insulting assumption about someone he could easily just write to without asking. That's deeply intellectually dishonest. He wanted to type more than he wanted to type the truth. If you stand behind him on that: no wonder you think all this other crazy stuff.

"You put it out there. You published it to the internet. When you do that, you open yourself up for criticism. If you put up a fucking painting for sale in a gallery and someone writes an essay on it, that doesn't mean they need to check with you first to make sure they've gotten your intent right. "

I've already explained to you that "This rule doesn't work with x y z assumptions" is an acceptable criticism and "this rule sucks and I pretend that's an objective assessment without proving it" is not. And pretending your opinion is a fact is bad.

"we're not journalists"--so? You're asserting facts in public.

"Did you take the time to PM any of them and make sure you weren't misinterpreting their posts before you insulted them?"

I didn't PM them, but I did, in every case, make sure there was no literal interpretation of their words that couldn't be taken as stupid before calling someone "stupid".

Like: Archmage saying my rules "shit" on people is stupid and there is no possible nonstupid interpretation of them.
Archmage assuming they do bad things without asking me is stupid and there is no nonstupid interpretation of that--he had all the tols to check.
Kaelik calling me names out of nowhere rather than engaging the discussion is stupid and there is no nonstupid excuse for that.
You assuming that when I call someone a "liar" it is unwarranted and you don't ask for evidence is stupid and there is no nonstupid excuse for that.
Frank refusing to answer questions when his statements are provably false and it's pointed out is stupid and there's no nonstupid excuse for that.
etc.
If there is a person I called "stupid" or a "liar" and you doubt my evidence--ask for it and you'll get it

deaddmwalking
"Since Zak insists that we are not allowed to assume and not asking makes you a troll, and being a troll means he has no cause to ever address anything you ever say ever again (neener, neener, neener), Virgil is absolutely being fair by pointing out that we either need to assume things about the rule in order to make it almost function or we need to ask the designer for a whole bunch of clarification so it can almost function"

Keyword being "we". You have to ask questions because you had a whole bunch of assumptions that other people reading the rule wouldn't necessarily have. deaddmwalking will have to address that unless he is stupid or trolling.


"Ultimately, the 'rule' fails because it doesn't impact the game at all. You're tracking something that is ultimately meaningless. You can use the 'apple-stacking' to ask someone to do something for you, but it only works if they were going to do it anyway. At least, apparently. "

That's like saying you can only order food from a restaurant that they were going to bring you anyway. Deaddmwalking will have to address that unless he is stupid or trolling.

"If those extrapolations don't match what your audience desires, we can show it is a bad rule for your intended audience. "

True. I have said that many times. Deaddmwalking will have to address that unless he is stupid or trolling.

Which leads to…

MGuy

"Except that in the original challenge that you asked PL for you were to give a rule that satisfied one specific audience: PL. You didn't. "

"As I said here, the original audience for the challenge was PL. You're the one who wanted to be challenged so you can't complain about the target audience."

I am not responsible for satisfying requirements PhoneLobster failed to mention. MGuy will have to address that unless he is stupid or trolling.

So, again, that argument goes:

Zak: It works for the intended audience
Y'all: But PHONELOBSTER was the intended audience
Zak: If he had requirements unlike the target audience for whom I would be expected to "make a ruling" (which is what the whole question was about) then he needed to articulate them.
Y'all: (no response to that) (ever) (in like, what, months now)

You all will have to address that unless you are stupid or trolling.

Deaddmwalking

"Considering your ability to quickly recall and review any 'ruling' you've ever made (as you have previously claimed), it seems you could include monster stat blocks in your 'ruling' organization method and have it on hand faster than reading the 'real rule' in a book or online SRD. Or would you like to claim that you've never said that? "

I don't recall ever saying I could remember every single ruling I ever made. If you think that, quote me. They are easy to find though because they get written down. Worst case scenario is I google my own blog.

fbmf

"You once said on this message board that admitted internet trolls forfeit all human rights and shouldn't be rendered potentially life saving medical care if they needed it. Do you stand by that statement, or (what I find more likely) in a moment of frustration did you say something you didn't believe? "

You are giving yourselves way too much credit if you think I get frustrated here. Yes, I do believe that trolling (that is: asserting you believe things you don't in order to make the other person mad in the middle of conversations that are allegedly about getting something done) is, humanly, a bad thing to do--regardless of target.

If the target is harmless--you've wasted time you could've spent doing something more useful. If the target is harmful--you've chosen an ineffective weapon and, again, wasted time. (There might be some loophole if you're some kind of crusading journalist fucking with a powerful institution, but that is not the case here.) As for the appropriate punishment for being such a bad person: that's not a topic I can freely discuss on this forum as I understand the rules.

DSMATTICUS

"
Frank pointed out that even if Zak insists on defending his shitty rule, it still very obviously did not meet the explicit design criteria laid out in the challenge Zak accepted, Zak... did not respond at all,"

If there is a criticism I haven't addressed, say that. So far as I know, I am actively talking about every part of the rule that has been criticized

"when he was caught deriding playstyles he didn't care for "

WOTMANIAC
"People when apeshit because YOU initiated unfair/denigrating mis-characterizations ... on the 3rd page of that very thread that you've so wittingly linked"
If you want me to accept "magical tea party" as not a derisive term, you have to accept "RAW isn't for adults" as not-derisive and "training wheels" as not-derisive terms.

I accept that some people--especially the young people who start GMing need training wheels on their game--there's no shame in that. There's no shame in wanting a published game like that. There's no shame in thinking that's a good way to run tournament games. There is tremendous and desperate shame in thinking that's the only good way to roll.

RED ROB
"you take that to mean that nothing can ever be objectively reviewed."

Quote me saying that. I am asking what your criteria is, not daring you because I think you have no answer.

"what most audiences want"

"And guess what? RPG rules are expected to work within their respective systems,"
Vague.
"incentivise behaviour in line with their design goals,"
Succesful!
"not lead to degenerate outcomes out of line with other systems in the game,"
Successful!
"and express at least some measure of verisimilitude with the chosen game setting."
Successful!

Address the "left handed scissors" argument.

I would like, Red Rob, to get to the rest of what you say about how you think rulings are bad, but I have asked people to address the left-handed scissors argument SOOO many times here and they keep not doing it that I worry that if I say too much you'll get derailed and not answer it.

So some people want "baseline" things. Everyone wants scissors that cut. The ones that cut best for lefties don't cut best for righties--address it. Address and don't dodge it. It'll save time.
-
-
In general--If I address peoples' points, I get accused of arguing too much. If someone thinks I didn't address their point, I get accused of ignoring their argument.

I understand this could be trolling, but it's my job to assume you mean what yousay unless (like Kaelik) you admit this is not always true.

If anyone has a question they think I didn't answer: ask it, you'll get an answer now, weekend hijinx permitting.
-
-
And here's a timeline for anyone wondering:

1. Someone makes up the term "Magical Tea Party"
2. I write a blog entry
3. Archmage talks about it, gets it wrong, says my game "shits" on players and is Magical Tea Party
4. I explain that it does not do this. My description is accurate.
5. The Gaming Den accuses me of attacking them.


When I talk smack on you on my blog or anywhere else without talking to you about whatever my beef is first, then you get to complain. The first stone flew through my window.

[A Man In Black]

No, I am literally asking what he uses as a metric. It is not a rhetorical question. Stop assuming bad faith.

Suggesting that you might be making a dumb argument but it isn't clear because your grasp on language is pretty fucking tentative isn't an accusation of bad faith.

I don't think you're trying to pick fights because of unstated malicious reasons. I just think you're a jackoff, jackoff.

[malak]

And here's a timeline for anyone wondering:

1. Someone makes up the term "Magical Tea Party"
2. I write a blog entry
3. Archmage talks about it, gets it wrong, says my game "shits" on players and is Magical Tea Party
4. I explain that it does not do this. My description is accurate.
5. The Gaming Den accuses me of attacking them.

A fair and accurate summary. Yes, that's exactly what happened.

[DSMatticus]

Sweet jesus that is unreadable. It also looks completely unfinished in spots, in that things stop midsentence. Even after being edited six times. But because juxtaposing Zak claiming that he is arguing in good faith and addressing all points that come his way with Zak arguing in bad faith and deliberately dodging points that come his way is so hilariously easy:

If there is a criticism I haven't addressed, say that. So far as I know, I am actively talking about every part of the rule that has been criticized

The thing that's really weird about this whole thing is that Zak S appears to be sufficiently arrogant to believe that he actually did complete the task "100%." That's odd of course, because he was asked for a social currency system and produced something wasn't a social currency system at all. We can discuss whether it was terrible, and indeed pretty much everyone who has read it has determined that it is, in fact, extremely bad. But everyone should be able to see that if the design goal is "make a social currency system" and you produce something that is not a social currency system and walk away, that you very definitely didn't complete the task.

We could have a debate whether writing something that was either "social" or currency entailed completing the task to 50% or 0%, but 100% is clearly outside the possible discussion space. If something isn't social currency, then obviously it can't possibly be considered a 100% completion of a request to make social currency. It's just not even a thing that sane people can even suggest as a possibility.

Personally, I lean towards the opinion that Zak's failure was total and complete. But I could definitely see a rational person arguing that he only half failed on the grounds that he did write up some things which could generously be called social guidelines. Zak S' claim that he completed the task 100% cannot be taken seriously. That is demonstrably a narcissistic delusion. The amount of narcissism required to think that was even a thing that could be seriously suggested in discussion is genuinely pathological. My suggestion, my serious suggestion, as a doctor, is to get psychological help. There is no magical cure that makes narcissistic personality disorder go away, but some patients do better taking anti-anxiety or anti-psychotic medications.

-Username17

The last interaction about the rule with Frank was:

Frank: "This rule looks like it wouldn't reward altruistic PCs."

Zak: "Nope, here's an example" (the OP has examples in it)

Frank: (nothing)

Whether or not you think the rule is bad, there's no denying it rewards altruistic and selfish PCs alike. Or at least there's an example of that happening that Frank is just letting sit out there and not addressing--and neither is anyone else.
So the fact that Frank is reading this thread but not admitting that he made a mistake there is intensely intellectually dishonest. I don't really see how anybody could think Frank has any credibility. He's just covering the fact that he made a huge mistake by hurling invective and speaking in abstractions.

That was on page 8. The word "currency" appears in your posts over the following five pages (and probably more than that) exactly zero times. You made a very obvious and transparent attempt to change the topic with a bit of particularly juvenile (and fallacious) provocation, and when Frank did not take your bait you just pretended he hadn't said anything at all and went on your merry way. You do not address all criticisms that come your way, which is fine in and of itself. You are only one man, and you have shit to do. I wish you had more, honestly, because fuck off. I mean, yes, that's totally hypocritical given your insistence that people aren't allowed to call you stupid for a second thing until you give them permission to stop arguing that you're stupid for the first thing (you really are just hilarious). But you will actually go above and beyond simply not responding and straight to bullshit misdirection in a deliberate effort to avoid being expected to respond at all.

[codeGlaze]

He also has a tendency to use "Denner" as if the same hivemind embodied both Frank and shadzar.

It's a common internet misconception cause by a majority of Dennizens agreeing on specific topics of a small rules set that a larger, or rather... more vocal, audience has a difficult time wrapping their brains around.

When you argue with people who are arguing from emotion, the more you argue the more entrenched they become in their position. Largely people who simply write off TGD because of being "bitten once" by something they don't really understand (and probably don't want to understand) are arguing from emotional angles. Those people are typically 'One True Way'-ists and completely divorced from critical thinking because of emotional investment.

Nobody likes to be proven wrong and nobody likes to see their beliefs turned upside down. Dealing with the blunt critics on TGD tends to do that, though. It also happens swiftly and precisely with little concern for the "feelings" a person has invested in their posts/topics/view points.

So the majority of these people recoil and write us off as 'One True Way'-ers, ass holes, cock barrels, mean internet trolls... etc. Then they recede back to their home turf to talk about how much we suck. So people who don't bother to investigate on their own (a large majority of any given population) will believe the people who they have a community connection with.

So yea, there are a few commonalities that "Denners" have, but those commonalities are typically completely glossed over or overwritten by people who are butthurt by the Den's bluntness. Which is exactly what he's doing.

None of us have sided with him and largely for different reasons. But he doesn't see that, he just sees a "united front", so we are obviously all of one, grognardy, mind.

[Red_Rob]

A terrifying stream-of-consciousness word salad

Oh Lordy... I think we broke Zak.

Okay, I'm out. I actually quite like some of Zak's work and don't think he's a bad person, and this is getting uncomfortable for me. Yes, he said something dumb on the internet and refused to back down, but this is seriously making me think he is having some kind of breakdown.

My earlier posts were honestly meant to try to bring this to some kind of resolution, but I really don't think that's possible at this point. So I won't be posting in this thread any more.

[Kaelik]

Now Zak has resorted to not using the easily available quote feature so he can maximize confusion, minimize the people who read what he says, and then whine later when people don't quote accurately out of a 500 line post with nothing even resembling basic forum coding organization.

You once said on this message board that admitted internet trolls forfeit all human rights and shouldn't be rendered potentially life saving medical care if they needed it. Do you stand by that statement, or (what I find more likely) in a moment of frustration did you say something you didn't believe?

Yes, I do believe that trolling (that is: asserting you believe things you don't in order to make the other person mad in the middle of conversations that are allegedly about getting something done)

That is not the definition of trolling. You can also troll people by saying things you do believe in a manner that is deliberately designed to parody them. Which is what I was doing. Nor is it to make you angry. Certainly some trolls look for anger. I would have settled for realizing how shitty you come off, how difficult your preferred method of communicating previous points is(or was, since your new system is to just lie about what other people said... which I'm sad to say is actually progress), and how much your stupid whiny whines about clarification are fucking obviously absurd when we can read the things you actually wrote.

And hey, while you are completely ignoring everything substantive I say while bitching constantly about me (All bolds are mine):

See, this is why I hate whiny shits who talk about "to each their own" without fail you always actually mean "don't criticize me, but actually, yeah, the way you play the game is shitty and you are a loser.

Which is a meaningless assumption (assuming an answer to the question he just asked before waiting for an answer) and personal attack.

It was not an assumption. It was something you had already proven. If I had asked you the question, you would have lied like the lying liar you are, I didn't need to ask the question because you had already said the stupid offensive things that showed you think your way of gaming is superior, and you have repeated those things since, and you have said many new ones, like when you claimed that your rules which aren't rules because they don't actually do anything without making up all the content on the spot version of playing D&D is better because, and I quote (using quote tags, because I am not the kind of asshole who attempts to muddy conversations):

You do not understand this basic principle: in order for any tabletop RPG to not be shit, it include and must require the creation of new material.

And any game session without original material will always be shit. At least for any audience worth playing with. (Note: you may be too stupid to be in that kind of audience.)

Which is certainly an insufficient premise for your argument, but more importantly, it sure sound like Zak S, you, that asshole who said that, think that your method of gaming is superior to the method of running modules as is for a rules heavy game system that does not require adjudication. It sure sounds like you think that kind of gaming is shit, and that the people who enjoy playing it are stupid.

And when I say, sounds like, I don't mean, could possibly be interpreted that way better ask for clarification. I mean clearly and obviously could not possibly have any other meaning, and does in fact mean that, because we can parse and English sentence and see that it means that. Now of course, if we asked for clarification, you would not say that, because you would lie, because you are a liar, and I was accusing you of being a liar in that post, so obviously I did not ask you a question in order to give you a chance to lie.

So you, Zak S, do in fact think other people's gaming is shitty because it is different from yours. So aside from the fact that I accused you of being a liar, because you were lying, and that I was right about you hating other people's methods of gaming, not just for yourself, but even going so far as to call them stupid, what about my post offends you so?

So yes Zak, what you can see there is that literally months beforehand I predicted nearly exactly what you would say, when push comes to shove, about other gaming styles. I'm sorry that my several months ahead of time prediction used the word loser instead of stupid to describe those assholes you don't like because they game differently than you.

[fectin]

@wotmaniac - fun as poking fun at laypeople might be (it's actually not), I try to avoid it. That said, while I understand the urge to say "increase reliability" like it's a tank of gas you can top off, it really isn't. More importantly though, that urge to say "make it more reliable" is exactly the same urge as saying "make it simpler," or "make it prettier." Much like REALIZRM, reliability rarely means exactly the same thing to any two people, and asking for more of it is an exercise in frustration.

I have literally watched literally billions of dollars get committed by accident because someone thought it was that simple, more than once. It may have made me oversensitive.

[Ancient History]

50. So Chess is a better game than D&D if you want to only use the objective scale. Chess has less potential for abuse than D&D in any form yet created. Correct?

Don't know about "any form yet created," because honestly I've only looked up a few of the fairy chess variants. Mechanically, chess has less potential for abuse than D&D. Of course, chess generally isn't a form of roleplaying.

I mean the swordfight of 2 swordsmen that goes "initiative roll to hit, miss, roll to hit, miss, intiiative, roll to hit, damage, cross off number, roll to hit, damage" and that's all they do or say is totally a possibility using D&D and that's more boring than all the consequences you've described. That's the mechanics allowing for a boring outcome.

Did you have a point buried in there?

51. You assert "too much math/flipping" is subjective and "abusable" is objective. Could be true. But really you're not claiming "abusable" you're claiming "too abusable" correct? Because otherwise you'd have to admit Charm (and many other D&D rules you would use) are "abusable". Almost any D&D rule can be abused. It's the probability for abuse you're judging. Correct?

Not really. I can't judge how probable any given abuse of the rules might be; I can only show mathematically that such abuse is possible.

Mechanically, I don't feel charm in AD&D is broken - it's limited to certain classes of characters at certain levels, it has a limited effect, there are some critters like elves that are plain immune to it, and everyone else gets a saving throw. You can have some exceptional situations where charm saves the day or casters that spam charm all the time, but I consider that a fair cop the way that a gun with lots of bullets is fair in a world with swordsmen.

"Charm spell, as we have said many many times, allows a saving throw. It at least allows an opportunity for the character to resist. The overwhelming bonus against a static target number does not allow that. "

52. You've referred to this defense many times as if it mattered and I can't think for the life of me why.

And this is perhaps the heart of your problem. The problem with your static TN rules so far is that they can result in situations where passing the effect is basically automatic. Now maybe the fucking saving throw is a formality in some cases, but at least it gives you a fucking hope. You've yet to tell us how your master swordsman would hold on to his fucking weapon if some apprentice decides to disarm him, for example. I mean, let's look at your example (spoilered because this is long enough already):

Example, AD&D. Let's charitably (very charitably to you) assume the Master Swordsman got to be a Master Swordsman with a Dex of only 12. Anything less could reasonably be construed as an obviously exploitable weakness the enemy is clever to target.

So their AC is 12. 9th level is the point where the student has what might begin to be considered to have an Overwhelming Advantage to hit AC 12 (they, at that point, need only a 4 or better, before that they needed at least a 6, which I wouldn't consider overhwhelming).

The Master must be at least 11th level then. (Both student and master fall into the same fighter multiple attacks bracket for post-Unearthed Arcana AD&D).

So we got the lowest plausible Dex for a Master Swordsman, we got the lowest plausible level for the student (9th level--which is already an amazing fucking hero whose player been probably been playing AD&D at least once a week for a year. That's charitable--I got an AD&D level 9 after…2 or 3 years.) And we have the lowest possible difference between student and alleged master.

If the Master was prioritizing not being disarmed, they could use the Fight Defensively rule for one of his attacks (both combatants get an extra attack every other round). (+4 to AC). Now the student needs an 8 or better and the advantage isn't overwhelming, it's just a good tactic targeting the Master's barely-above-average dexterity. The Master on the other hand needs only a 2 to disarm the student if they have the same dex (12) and an 8 to disarm a max dex (18) student. And a master who has the experience vs a student who has the innate agility should look like that.

That's just the simplest example. The master could do other, cooler stuff, too. Like tie the sword on a short thin cord to their wrist.

Anyway: that is a scenario I find acceptable. If you do not, that isn't an objective assessment by you, that's just your taste talking. You want level (having played more D&D) to create a bigger difference faster than I do.

Long spoiler short: student can disarm his master by rolling 8 on a d20 - and that's after the master decides to "fight defensively" and not counting any other bonus. So your master swordsman in this example basically has almost no chance of keeping some snot-nosed punk from disarming him, and on the second round probably getting stabbed because he's now unarmed. Can you not conceive how many people think it should be more difficult to disarm a master swordsman than a student, or how that could be abused?

…in your god-king example you completely ignored all the other NPCs in the world who would want that god-king's sword.

In your examples, you've ignored every other NPC in the world too. Did you want to go back and sketch them all out and we'll meet here in a hundred years to see who's done a better job?

If you could, can you narrate (in more plausible detail) 2 situations one with Charm and one with my mechanic that takes into effect all of the considerations actually in the rule that shows how the overall end effect of the PCs being able to take this Very Likely Action after doing a lot of work is more abusable than he PCs being able to just Charm the target with a successful save.

I could, yes. I'm not going to. I've already submitted to quite a number of your requests here, and you've yet to produce anything like a fucking point to compensate.

Also, in your example, the consequence was not that bad--a dead king. The game didn't necessarily get boring, it likely got more chaotic and interesting. So your example will need a consequence that is boring--something tedious like using one spell to get past all traps ever.

Keep it in mind that not all games are happy-go-lucky pull-it-out-of-my-arse-as-necessary affairs. Some people like to play actual game modules, though ghost along knows why, which have a defined plot (choo! choo!) and probably an adventure path. Some gamemasters like to spend quite a bit of work developing their campaign worlds and adventures and don't account for major NPCs expiring by rude surprise. And it's not up to you to say "oh well, that sounds like fucking fun to me, let's go!" Just because that shit would fly at your table doesn't mean it'll work at anyone else's.

53. Do you agree that a competent GM is essential equipment, like dice?

No. Lots of GMs start out just learning, trying to have fun with their friends. Not everybody steps behind the shield (or pizza box, whatever) and immediately dons the mantle of Master Storyteller.

54. Then all of D&D is abusable, right?

D&D isn't one single set of rules. There's dozens of supplements, half-a-dozen editions, magazine articles, homebrewed stuff, fucking optional rules...and not all of it is abusable. Some of it, certainly. Maybe a fair chunk of it, there's a lot of basic criticism just on the standard AD&D design. But I wouldn't say all of it.

55. Again in case you missed it: Are you trying to prove "abusability period"? or "a subjective level of abusability Ancient History considers unacceptable"?

I think we covered objective, inarguable abusability back on page 1, post 1. Your rule has the potential to give an overwhelming bonus. That can be abused.

"43. As Charm--why would the GM design an NPC whose range of possible available (non-magicked) behavior included things he didn't want that NPC (un-magicked) to do?"

"That's a strange sort of argument; most NPCs aren't pre-programmed robots that can only do a few set functions and only give certain rote responses to inputs. This isn't a JRPG where the PCs ask questions off a menu or anything. The whole point of tabletop RPGs is a greater level of interaction with characters and the play environment."

55. Are you saying that you assume all NPCs are infinitely malleable?

I'm saying that NPCs need not have rote responses.

56. Do you design NPCs knowing that (absent magic) there are things they will never do?

Never is a strong word. In real life, I feel there's very few things people would not do if the circumstances were right, and I try to give my characters the same consideration. Granted, in normal circumstances there are things NPCs would never do...but adventures are not normal circumstances.

57. Did you know I did?

Did what?

"(I don't have any podcasts of my games)"

"Really? I could have sworn I saw a video of it somewhere up on the web. My bad then."

I do have videos, if they're now available as podcasts that's news to me. But that's not important.

I probably construed those as podcasts. Anyway, I agree it's not important.

" 45. So how can you describe a result as inevitable (mutual disarm) (which you did) if you accept that it doesn't always happen? That's a contradiction. Inevitable means it always happens."

"I'm going to need to ask for a link to me saying "inevitable." I don't recall saying that. "

"And from that simulationist level, it fails - because most sword fights, both in real life and fiction, do not end with the master swordsmen disarming each other and continuing on with tooth and fist. "

You claimed that the rule would ("most" of the time) lead to this consequence, when really it is one of many possible. Swordmen considering a strike to disarm or one person getting disarmed is actually a fairly common thing.

No link, and apparently no use of the word "inevitable." You could just admit you're wrong every now and then, y'know. There's no shame in it.

Re: Disarming - I agree that in real life fencers do disarm people from time to time. But it doesn't happen all the time, and it's usually a matter of skill and experience.

58. Do you contend this mutual disarmament result would happen "most" of the time?

59. If so, prove it. If not, what did you mean?

If you had someone that figured out disarming was an exceptionally easy tactic, they could abuse it all the time and combats would either be very short and/or the gamemaster might start having NPCs disarm PCs, in which case you get into a bit of Knights of the Dinner Table-style madness where fights become huge disarm contests.

And that's leaving out a big boss fight going south quickly when you disarm Orcus of his wand or something in round 1.

As with all abuse, I'm not saying it's going to happen. But it has the potential to happen.

""Shitting fit" isn't calling names; I think it's a pretty accurate description of someone that spends the better part of six pages on a rant, refusing to admit he's wrong about anything, and accusing all and sundry of being liars and idiots. "

"shitting fit" is still an insult and you insulted me based on bad premises:
You think I called someone a liar wrongly without evidence but didn't think to ask for that evidence?
Instant chewtoy.
You think I called someone an idiot without evidence but didn't think to ask for that evidence?
Instant chewtoy.

Okay, so you think you have the inalienable right to call someone an idiot or a liar based on nothing but your understanding, but you insist everyone else has to beg you for evidence before calling you on it? What the hell, man?

Plus you call refusing to agree with people I actually disagree with (yes, I could agree with the moron who thinks Doyle doesn't exist or the guy who thinks no altruistic behavior could ever happen or that most swordfights would end in mutual disarmament but then we'd both be wrong, instead of just you--bad outcome) a moral failing worthy of talking smack

I think refusing to realize you're wrong is a personal failing.

Also you decided my rational defense was a "rant" which is a word that means "saying a lot of things that aren't Ancient History's opinion"

Your "rational defense" has consisted mostly of feeling insulted because people didn't get you, failing hard at a rules challenge, arguing about it when people noticed you failed, and refusing to acknowledge the objective failings in your rules when they were pointed out to you. You've changed the subject, evaded the subject, attacked the people looking at the subject, insulted pretty most of the people in this thread and the two previous ones...yeah, I feel pretty good about describing that as ranting.

If I had responded to it, would that have made you happy?

It would make me happy if you could stop insulting everyone that doesn't automatically agree with you.

D) MOST IMPORTANTLY: If you thought I was attempting to change the subject (I like the subject, why would I change it?) then the appropriate thing to do would be to as me questions to establish my motives, not lurk and then spring this retroactive judgment on me months later.

Dude, what? Quit trying to change the subject! Read back. I purposefully kept out of the cluster-fuck that was the first thread, except to warn you about the nature of this place. You're the one that popped on later when they brought up your name again; I made this thread based off that one after the original thread got so bogged down that people were missing the point, which is your rule sucks.

60. Which of those words do you think I did not mean? Quote me.

I will assume you are not trolling: please re-read my comments up to this point and if you do not see where I say that, ask a question and I will clarify.

For a dude that's big on people asking you questions before they post anything:

1) You never clarify anything in your posts,

2) You never ask anyone else to clarify what they mean before calling them an idiot or a liar

Putting an obligation on someone else that you yourself don't adhere to is arguing in bad faith.

61. Are you saying that when I get attacked and called names, that attempting to address that attack is "changing the subject"?

If you address that attack instead of addressing the subject then...yeah. You'll notice that when I proved your rule sucked, I did it in one post and didn't refer to any of the particular unkind words you said about me.

"Please scroll up to earlier in this post concerning "charm spells allow a saving throw," which we've addressed repeatedly and at length and which I believe you've never acknowledged and keep ignoring because you continually bring the same point up again. "

As we've established above, I don't understand why you think a saving throw is somehow a better defense than all the things that have to happen in order for my mechanic to have the Charm effect on someone. I haven't ignored that--I have asked repeatedly for you to clarify it and am still asking now.

I've addressed this every single time you've brought it up. Go scroll up in this thread! I did it again!

So, same question again:

"
ignoring an answer is not a fault unless the person again later begs the same question that was an answer to.

49. If you believe I ever did that to you: quote me."

Immediately above, where you ask about saving throws. We've been over saving throws. Repeatedly. You might not like the answer because you've got it in your head that a saving throw is a quaint formality or something, but there it is. Do I really need to bring out the rape example again?

"I still consider it a personal failing, however. "

Yeah and I consider a billion things you do a personal failing but I'm only sticking to things that I can prove and that get in the way of fact finding.

Fair enow.

" Do I get to pick an arbitrary point before you were belligerent and get to ignore everything after that? Because I think I've been a fairly good sport so far."

I don't know what this is meant to mean. As soon as you say "shitting fit" you lose the right to complain. If you would like a question answered, you can ask.

Okay. You're choosing an arbitrary point after which you think can insult me freely and ignore what I say because I used "shitting fit" to describe you without asking for clarification first; given that, do you think it would be unfair if I used the exact same logic to ignore and belittle you at will after you got belligerent and insulting first? Because I can ignore everything you've said after the point and treat you as an unrepentant asshat if you really want me to, and I'd just be using your own avowed personal ethics to justify it.

"This is awesome for a "power fantasy" game and totally shits all over players who are into it for a tactical thinking exercise where your choices are supposed to matter. "

Saying my game "shits" on players--my own players, and myself--is an insult then you have now been informed.

Dude, you got insulted when someone called your games a tactical exercise. You said right here that's not your kind of game. So how the fuck can it be an insult against you and your players to say that the rule you wrote when used by an entirely different group of people might not be perfect, when you've pretty much admitted that much already?

Also, me explaining to Archmage all the things he got wrong is not a "hissy cow". Also if you thought all these things, your private messages of polite counsel at that time to me seem, in retrospect, exceptionally smarmy and dishonest.

Honestly, I didn't even give passing glance to what you were arguing about, I was just trying to deliver a polite warning. How silly of me!

In fact, I'd say this is the headshot for this whole damn discussion. Archmage got some details of my game wrong and said it "shit" on people and then I came in and explained the actual details and you think Archmage is blameless. That means you're out of your mind. He's not allowed to make such an insulting assumption about someone he could easily just write to without asking. That's deeply intellectually dishonest. He wanted to type more than he wanted to type the truth. If you stand behind him on that: no wonder you think all this other crazy stuff.

I don't always agree with what Archmage says, but I agree with his right to say it, and without needing permission or clarification from you. If he's wrong, he's got a right to be wrong, just like you had a right to come along and correct him.

Except...he's not wrong! You got insulted about something and rushed to defend it, but he was talking about something that very explicitly wasn't your group or playstyle. And everything that's flowed out of that has been based on your misunderstanding and unbelievable pretentiousness.

I didn't PM them, but I did, in every case, make sure there was no literal interpretation of their words that couldn't be taken as stupid before calling someone "stupid".

I call bullshit. You won't even acknowledge that the rules you posted have mechanics that are objectively shown to be broken. You belittle people for disagreeing with you, plain and simple. Case in fucking point:

I called "stupid" or a "liar" and you doubt my evidence--ask for it and you'll get it

Okay. You've accused me of being stupid. Give me some provable evidence that doesn't equate to "AH disagrees with what I said."

[Almaz]

Posting in an [Epic Thread].

This is priceless comedy, and what really makes it is the occasional derail into discussing drugs. Zak S, do keep it up. Eventually you'll prove wrong those people who are saying mean things on the internet about you. Probably right before a Doctor Who Christmas Special.

[MGuy]

Zak: If he had requirements unlike the target audience for whom I would be expected to "make a ruling" (which is what the whole question was about) then he needed to articulate them.

He did. He told you explicitly how your rule failed to meet expectations. I mean, there are pages worth of it. You COULD NOT have missed it.

[Zak S]

I called "stupid" or a "liar" and you doubt my evidence--ask for it and you'll get it

Okay. You've accused me of being stupid. Give me some provable evidence that doesn't equate to "AH disagrees with what I said."

"Shitting fit"--saying that proves you are stupid. You could have had a conversation with me without insults and you chose (first) to have one with insults. Do not complain when men serve you as you serve them.