You know what sucks about RPGs' rules?

[Elennsar]

I'd still rather have the DMG tell the DM something besides "Its really not very nice for you to be a cockstain." in that section.

Of course, what I'd -really- rather have it do is tell the DM what to do to make good campaigns or whatever they're called.

[Roy]

I want to know why a 'mud space' would slow you down, even though you are jumping over it and thus not in the damn mud in the first place. Is it a fucking high gravity square or something?

[PhoneLobster]

use your best judgment, don't be a dick, and feel free to kick players out if they're douchebags translates to

a screed telling him he can and should do whatever he feels like and should kick out anyone who disagrees with that.

in PL world.

No, it doesn't translate, it IS that. You want to take a manual with rules the GM is supposed to follow, and replace it with a mere "trust your instincts, feel good about yourself and kick out players". WRONG MOVE. That is directly counter-productive to the goal of restraining dickery, it is in fact the pro-dickery agenda. Ask any dick-GM, that is their fantasy wank manual you are describing.

Which you then further revealed is exactly what you were talking about when you did exactly that directly BEFORE accusing me of over reacting...

The DM is in charge. The DM can make up whatever rules he wants. There's a reason he's running the game and the players aren't. If a player is a jerk, he should be booted. Similarly, if the DM is a jerk, he should be booted. And if the players don't like the DMs rules, they can find a new game or try to get him to change his rules. This isn't some democratic-cooperative storytelling revolt where the players get to boss the DM around.

The DM's word is law. If you think the law is stupid, try to change it, leave the game, or accept it.

I didn't even need to bold for emphasis, you did it for me.

Your DM is god attitude is both typical, boring, and incredibly stupid. Some paltry lip service to "remember you are the Tyrant by divine right! But please be nice if you get around to it" doesn't cut it. Your agenda is clear, the emphasis of your opinion is clear, the implications of removing vast swathes of rules and replacing them with "DM knows best, so eat it" are unavoidable.

And your position is also exactly what I claimed it to be from your rant against the DMG being anything other than a rule zero DM power tripping wank festival. DM's word is law, suck his dick or be prepared to be booted from the game, no further rules are required from an entire game rules manual provided for his use...

[name_here]

I want to know why a 'mud space' would slow you down, even though you are jumping over it and thus not in the damn mud in the first place. Is it a fucking high gravity square or something?

You misread it. You're jumping over a pit into a mud space. Still makes little sense, but if movement cost is applied by destination instead of origin, it's the only way to simulate mud dragging on you as you move.

[Psychic Robot]

No, it doesn't translate, it IS that. You want to take a manual with rules the GM is supposed to follow, and replace it with a mere "trust your instincts, feel good about yourself and kick out players". WRONG MOVE. That is directly counter-productive to the goal of restraining dickery, it is in fact the pro-dickery agenda. Ask any dick-GM, that is their fantasy wank manual you are describing.

Which you then further revealed is exactly what you were talking about when you did exactly that directly BEFORE accusing me of over reacting...

Fail. You can't read or think.

I didn't even need to bold for emphasis, you did it for me.

You're right, I did. That line is something I threw in as an afterthought for the purpose of getting you to shit your pants some more. Congratulations; YHBT.

Your DM is god attitude is both typical, boring, and incredibly stupid. Some paltry lip service to "remember you are the Tyrant by divine right! But please be nice if you get around to it" doesn't cut it. Your agenda is clear, the emphasis of your opinion is clear, the implications of removing vast swathes of rules and replacing them with "DM knows best, so eat it" are unavoidable.

And your position is also exactly what I claimed it to be from your rant against the DMG being anything other than a rule zero DM power tripping wank festival. DM's word is law, suck his dick or be prepared to be booted from the game, no further rules are required from an entire game rules manual provided for his use...

You're completely retarded and largely incapable of logical discourse.

[PhoneLobster]

Fail. You can't read or think... That line is something I threw in as an afterthought for the purpose of getting you to shit your pants some more. Congratulations; YHBT...
You're completely retarded and largely incapable of logical discourse.

This time I bold for emphasis on the punch line to your own words that makes my point about you for me.

As a hilarious side benefit it shows you know not the word we humans call "irony".

[Elennsar]

Well, why exactly -are- you suggesting we remove anything (or underemphasis anything) in the swath of rules that would otherwise be there instead of "trust the DM knows what he's doing"?

I mean, even if he does, the DMG should still talk about what sort of things to (not) do - its not like you're born knowing this stuff, even if you're a great DM.

[Psychic Robot]

Yes, and that's precisely why I talked about part of it saying DON'T BE A DICK. But someone like PL has to take a dump all over the topic because I dared proclaim that the DM is in charge of the fucking game because he's the one running the game, and that means he gets to make rules, break rules, and alter rules as he sees fit.

If you don't like it, then don't play. Find a new group or run your own game. It's as simple as that. If the DM really is a jerkass, then you're better off by not playing with him, and it's likely that the other players will follow suit soon enough.

Again, if the DM says "no monks or elves," and you want to play an elf or a monk or an elven monk, then ask him to change the rules or play something else or don't play.

[Talisman]

use your best judgment, don't be a dick, and feel free to kick players out if they're douchebags translates to

a screed telling him he can and should do whatever he feels like and should kick out anyone who disagrees with that.

in PL world.

No, it doesn't translate, it IS that. You want to take a manual with rules the GM is supposed to follow, and replace it with a mere "trust your instincts, feel good about yourself and kick out players". WRONG MOVE. That is directly counter-productive to the goal of restraining dickery, it is in fact the pro-dickery agenda. Ask any dick-GM, that is their fantasy wank manual you are describing.

A dick GM will be a dick no matter what rules are in place to restrain his dickery.

A non-dick GM will not be a dick no matter what rules exist to allow it.

PL, are you at all familiar with Spiderman? "With great power comes great responsibility." This is true of GMs as well. Being a GM is not, as you seem to say, some divinely-mandated post that cannot be changed. A GM needs greater "power" than any individual player, and must excercise greater responsibility than any individual player just to keep the game running smoothly.

A GM without power is a scarecrow, and his campaign quickly becomes chaotic and disorienting as he loses all narrative control.

A GM without responsibility is a tyrant, and his campaign quickly becomes dull and pointless as the players lose all narrative control.

[PhoneLobster]

Let's be clear about something here Talisman. PR's position is to remove all the rules from the DMG and replace them with suggestions to do things like trust your own judgement and to kick out players if you "need" to.

That is not a good thing in many ways. For instance...

A GM without power is a scarecrow, and his campaign quickly becomes chaotic and disorienting as he loses all narrative control.

A GM without responsibility is a tyrant, and his campaign quickly becomes dull and pointless as the players lose all narrative control.

Good rules are tools.

In the hands of a good GM they provide him with the power to describe and manage a campaign. Removing them and just telling him "wing it, try to be nice and boot those who disagree" does not help him indeed it harms and weakens him.

In the hands of a group suffering from a bad or just marginally inexperienced GM good rules are ALSO a tool. They help the group, and the GM himself, understand when and where the GM is overstepping boundaries he probably shouldn't be. They help to provide support for doing things a better way than a badly applied Rule Zero. They also provide a form of social contract or gentleman's understanding for the group so that players know, and can claim, and can point at something and say this is what I signed up for, not your power tripping dickery.

Removing them DOES in fact harm the game and give power to bad GMs. After all if the only rule is "The GM is right, suck it and like it bitches" then oddly that WILL be used as an excuse for abuse. I know, crazy isn't it? Give people a mile and they take a mile!

Lets look at rule zero itself for a second. The anti rule as it were. The "rule", or rather lack of rules, PR thinks the DMG should consist of 100% without interruption.

When was the last time you saw someone fellating rule zero and telling players to like it or walk who wasn't a complete dick defending some horrific rule or bad DM?

[Talisman]

Let's be clear about something here Talisman. PR's position is to remove all the rules from the DMG and replace them with suggestions to do things like trust your own judgement and to kick out players if you "need" to.

That's not what I read, but that's between you two so I'll let it go.

<snipped for brevity>

All right; I pretty much agree with that.

Lets look at rule zero itself for a second. The anti rule as it were. The "rule", or rather lack of rules, PR thinks the DMG should consist of 100% without interruption.

When was the last time you saw someone fellating rule zero and telling players to like it or walk who wasn't a complete dick defending some horrific rule or bad DM?

Leaving aside the hyperbole, I can think of several occasions of Rule 0 that were - in my opinion as a player - well-warrented and completely justified. I can think of more if I try, but that's not the point.

You seem - and I may be wrong - to be taking the opposite extreme: that the GM must never be allowd to break any rules for any reason. This, I disagree with.

[PhoneLobster]

That's not what I read,

Then you missed the start because it all clearly began, "The entire DMG should be one long section about use your best judgment, don't be a dick, and feel free to kick players out if they're douchebags."

That's the entire DMG and all its rules replaced with "DM is god".

Leaving aside the hyperbole, I can think of several occasions of Rule 0 that were - in my opinion as a player

Stop right there, we aren't leaving aside the hyperbole because we aren't talking about isolated uses of rule zero, we are talking about the indeed very hyperbolic "all rule zero, all the time" campaigners we have all encountered (and are encountering right here in the form of PR).

When someone goes on and on about the DM being god and how rule zero makes everything right, when are they NOT being a dick?

the opposite extreme: that the GM must never be allowed to break any rules for any reason. This, I disagree with.

If the GM is required to break a rule then that means the rule is flawed and needs to be removed and fixed outside of game play.

Rule zero is nothing more than a temporary emergency hack job of a fix. Pretending it is some sort of bedrock of good rules design is insane and counter productive. And also by coincidence widely advocated by dicky GMs.

[RandomCasualty2]

If the GM is required to break a rule then that means the rule is flawed and needs to be removed and fixed outside of game play.

Rule zero is nothing more than a temporary emergency hack job of a fix. Pretending it is some sort of bedrock of good rules design is insane and counter productive. And also by coincidence widely advocated by dicky GMs.

Considering that RPGs are open ended, it makes sense to have a rule 0 that says that the DM can rule on things that may come up. Trying to simulate a real world has the problem of actually letting players try all manner of things. What happens if you tie three alchemists fires together with rope and toss it? Does it do 3x damage? These things likely are just not going to be covered by the rules.

Sometimes the given rule may not make sense or the rules may be incomplete and require someone to just make something up out of their ass. I really don't even want a totally complete rules set with lots of obscure rules about every situation that may come up. In the middle of the game, I just want someone to make a ruling and go.

This is what actually makes RPGs so entertaining and largely why people disliked 4E. In 4E, it plays so much like a boardgame that you don't feel like you can do many open ended RPG things. It's just pick a power from your list and go.

[PhoneLobster]

Sometimes the given rule may not make sense or the rules may be incomplete and require someone to just make something up out of their ass.

Removing an entire core manual of rules and replacing them with rule zero oddly does not create a more complete system.

It only increases on the fly emergency rulings. And for all you laud their amazingness the reality is that on the fly rulings are only relatively rarely required in a remotely good system and more importantly are often badly executed when they are.

Your own example is indeed a perfect example. A very obvious option that probably should have been covered somehow, an on the fly ruling you provided involving 3x damage that could indeed be unbalancing good depending on the actual rules context and especially as a precedent for the 30,000 alchemists fires tied together that will occur as an inevitable escalation if it is any good.

On the fly rulings should be reduced as much as possible. Replacing your rules system with them is a stupid idea that leads to 600xalchemist fire suicide donkeys breaking the universe.

[RandomCasualty2]

Your own example is indeed a perfect example. A very obvious option that probably should have been covered somehow, an on the fly ruling you provided involving 3x damage that could indeed be unbalancing good depending on the actual rules context and especially as a precedent for the 30,000 alchemists fires tied together that will occur as an inevitable escalation if it is any good.

Honestly you're never going to be able to cover every single rule. No matter how hard you try, and really you want your game to cover the basics well, but probably want to rely on ad hoc rulings for anything that's out of the ordinary.

Mostly because people aren't going to memorize obscure rules. So when you get to the point that you've got a rule for tying alchemists fire together you dont' want to totally grind the game to halt as people start flipping pages (and they will). You want the DM to just make a ruling and go on.

Really the DMG should have good guidelines to help DM's adjudicate rule 0 problems like that. Because I think that making rulings is something every DM is going to have to do at some point, so getting people better at it will certainly help things along.

RPGs are never going to be rules codified to the point where anything you may try is in the rules. We're always going to need a DM for some kind of ad hoc rulings, and DMs need to learn how to be good at those rulings. While it shouldn't be encouraged that DMs should routinely ignore basic established rules, when the need arises, a DM should certainly step in and change things when it doesn't make any sense.

[Korwin]

... but what exactly are players supposed to do when the DM says that sorcerers know spells like clerics but cast them as they currently do?

Hmm, play an Sorcerer?

[Psychic Robot]

Let's be clear about something here Talisman. PR's position is to remove all the rules from the DMG and replace them with suggestions to do things like trust your own judgement and to kick out players if you "need" to.

Calm the fuck down, spaz. That was meant to be taken non-literally.

[Korwin]

Let's be clear about something here Talisman. PR's position is to remove all the rules from the DMG and replace them with suggestions to do things like trust your own judgement and to kick out players if you "need" to.

Calm the fuck down, spaz. That was meant to be taken non-literally.

Not literally? We got only what you wrote... We should ignore your post?

Ah I should not take you post (the one I quoted) literally. But that means you first post should be taken literally...

[Elennsar]

So, some of the DMG should be replaced, but how much?

Maybe we should just leave that part alone and focus on the other stuff.

[Psychic Robot]

My point was that the DM should primarily serve as a guide for novice DMs--as in, coaching them on how to deal with in-game and out-of-game problems.

[Elennsar]

As distinct from...what?

[PhoneLobster]

We got only what you wrote... We should ignore your post?

Apparently. Because whenever he needs to back peddle on something he claims he was only lying and trolling for the lulz and our inability to differentiate that makes us incapable of contributing to rational discussion.

Because loudly proclaiming he himself is trolling and being a lying dick who never feels he should be held to his own statements is apparently conducive to that.

Indeed not only conducive but also sufficiently sane to actually differentiate from the times he is instead trolling around like a fourth grader on crystal meth.

Honestly you're never going to be able to cover every single rule. No matter how hard you try, and really you want your game to cover the basics well, but probably want to rely on ad hoc rulings for anything that's out of the ordinary.

Doesn't matter. You are only presenting an argument to account for the littlegaps, not an argument to create more and larger gaps.

The only argument you present that there should be more gaps is essentially one against complexity through the page flipping complaint. That is somewhat flawed on a number of levels.

Having rules exist doesn't preclude adhoc filling of gaps in rules knowledge in play when they aren't known.

Good rules should be consistent, somewhat standardised and intuitive, simple and well referenced for quick look up.

Also ideally in cases where an obscure rule is unknown and then guessed intuitive and consistent design methods should lead the guess to be the same or similar to the formal rule. And that requires that the guide for the guy doing the guessing be less about guidelines on behaviour and tyrannical expulsion of rebel players and more about actually familiarising the GM with as much of the actual rules structure as possible so they get the feel to intuitive extensions they miss or forget.

Finally what is an edge case that simply adds unwarranted complexity to the game is questionable and highly subjective. You seem to think in a game that offers a stick of dynamite to PCs that strapping three of them together is an unthinkable act of cunning that probably hasn't been foreseen and maybe even SHOULDN'T be formally supported due to the needless complexity cost and "obscurity". For me however when you offer sticks of dynamite I immediately expect players are going to want to know what happens if the backpack they carry 50 of them in "accidentally" catches on fire and gets thrown at an enemy. So I would expect and prefer to see the rules dedicate some material to chain reactions and larger masses of explosives.

[Manxome]

I want to know why a 'mud space' would slow you down, even though you are jumping over it and thus not in the damn mud in the first place. Is it a fucking high gravity square or something?

You misread it. You're jumping over a pit into a mud space. Still makes little sense, but if movement cost is applied by destination instead of origin, it's the only way to simulate mud dragging on you as you move.

What he said. Though it's my impression that D&D's "difficult terrain" also sets movement cost by destination, so this is hardly the first game to feature that particular quirk.

[Draco_Argentum]

Also ideally in cases where an obscure rule is unknown and then guessed intuitive and consistent design methods should lead the guess to be the same or similar to the formal rule. And that requires that the guide for the guy doing the guessing be less about guidelines on behaviour and tyrannical expulsion of rebel players and more about actually familiarising the GM with as much of the actual rules structure as possible so they get the feel to intuitive extensions they miss or forget.

It needs more of those 'behind the scenes' style explanations so the GM can understand why the rules are a certain way. That'll help them ad hoc stuff in a way that fits the existing framework. Further there should be a section on how to use rule zero intelligently. People will change the rules, they won't do it well unless they get taught how. It should cover topics like how a ruling scales, what happens if the PCs use this, will this be fun from the player's PoV and is this something you want to see as a permanent fixture in the game.

[Judging__Eagle]

See.... with me, I see the DM as a referee and a person that sets up situations and locations for the PCs to interact with.

They aren't there to fight the players; the DM is there to know the rules and make sure that everyone gets a fair shake at playing the game.

Seriously, these would be some of the rules that every DM should follow, in fact, every player should follow:

1) PCs are meant to survive. Doing things that is counter to this idea is a bad idea.

((This means no turning every fucking dungeon into an insane war-fortresses that are run like real fortresses and can stand up to armies, let alone adventurers. I made this rule up because I can design impossible to beat war-fortresses, I seriously spend time and sit down with other DMs and have designed dungeons that use the special abilities of the monsters that live in there in order to create dungeons that are very difficult to assault, even with a massive army of NPCs the same level as the PCs.))

It was a "mansion" controlled by a very organized group of vampires that basically controlled a small nation.

The attackers were werewolves that had arrived recently, and had decided to take over the place. Werewolves can be active at night and day, the vampires only at night. So the wolves had, over the course of a few montsh, driven the vamps to their house. I helped the DM design the house.

The prime ability used is the fact that vampires have Gaseous Form. So the place has tons of areas that are only accessible via long and small shafts. Allowing the vampires to have free reign of the place, while no one else can possibly threaten them.

In fact, the whole top floor, where the vampires live, is impossible to be accessed except via gaseous form. Making the taking of the place really hard to do. The wolves would need to make piles of furniture to reach the very high ceiling, and then try to break a hole in the ceiling in order to get to the top floor.

Even things like the "main entrance" are traps. There is no main entrance, the main entrace doors lead to a giant room with no doors and a surrounding balcony. The main gate can be shut with a portcullis and then mere crossbowmen can fire at the trapped enemies below. The servants come in through smaller doors in more isolated areas of the mansion, and the vampires often just come in through the windows.

Those two elements alone could reduce any "invasion" by half or maybe even completely wipe out an invasion. The main gate "death hall" was meant to accommodate 100 people easily

2) The DM is playing Monsters or NPCs. The DM is NOT playing characters that they enjoy or will get attached to. Any character that the DM gets attached to must immediately be kidnapped, killed, vanish etc. NO FUCKING EXCEPTIONS EVER.

The PCs can kill NPCs that you feel you are getting attached to. Do this immediately, and let the PCs savor their victory.

This is the only way to prevent DMs from having NPCs have too much dominance over the story.

The only time that an NPC can be attached to a character is if the character will only help the PCs, and in a "I'm assisting you in acheiveing your goals" sort of way, not "I'm going to save the world now for you guys" sort of way. Combat NPCs that are more powerful than PCs, or spellcasters that are higher level are bad. A healer that is higher level than the PCs is much more acceptable for an NPC.

3) Never fucking shove your story down the player's throats.

Your story is shit. Your story is shit. Your. Story. Is. Shit.

Do you get me?

Do you fucking get me?

You are a piece of shit writer and you cannot get any of your shitty ideas published. Therefore you should not try to ram down your stupid story down the player's throats. At most, you should present a setting and have the players interact with it, the setting shouldn't force the players around unless the players have actually been doing things for a long time and actually affecting your setting in such a way that something will now seek them out.

I think that there might be one person ever that I would allow to railroad me. Natch, make that two. Two people that I have met in my entire life that I would be "okay" with being able to railroad me. One will probably never DM, ever. The other I will probably never meet in person, let alone sit down at a table and game with them, or even game with them online.

If you force PCs into bad stories, the ghost of RPGs past will come after you and beat you to death with a railroad tie. I fucking kid you not.

[Note: these two people that I'm referring to are both 1) excellent writers, and 2) I actually trust them a great deal, one based on what they have written, the other based on my experience of them as a person. If you are reading this, you are probably not one of those two people.]

If you aren't an anthropomorphic creature that can take on dozens, if not hundreds or even thousands, of different fuzzy animal forms or birds, you aren't one of these people. If you aren't a brutally honest regenerating-monster-human-male, then you're not the second.

4) Make sure that everyone is on the same page.

If a player does something that doesn't make sense, inform them about what their character should know. A lot of DMs suck at describing, a lot of players also suck at understanding the drivel that a DM is saying.

Make sure that everyone realizes that there's a visible pit in front of the door, before anyone charges into the room. If someone does anyway, make sure that they are reminded of the pit.

5) Powergame, and min-max. First for the players. If you need, for your monsters and NPCs. Seriously, do this. Everyone will have more fun, and your group will have much better stories to tell afterward.

Always tell a player as many of their character's possible options. Especially if you are a stronger player or know one of the weaknesses of your own encounters that a PC might take advantage of.

The only reason that I can run the encounters that I do, and not have my players utterly loathe me is that I give suggestions on how to use their abilities to get the maximum benefit out of them. I've got a bit of a tactical bent, and after playing some turn-based tactical games with people that knew what they were doing, I learned how to approach turn-based combat more effectively.

When the DM is willing to help players Min-Max and powergame, then can a game really be played. For the DM it's exciting to watch a lone monk go after a Catoblepas in a swamp, or a group of PCs gang up against a single very high level challenge and not only have no PC die, but also kill the monster. For the players, they get a really good story to tell afterwards; so do you as a DM.

There's probably some more, but those are the ones that really stick out for me.