Your Rule Sucks: The Zak S Social Currency Edition

[Zak S]

If your "higher level" challenge isn't harder to defeat than a "lower level" challenge, then you don't have levels of challenges -- you have an arbitrary number salad that has been vomited forth upon the page.

That is precisely what I would call a desirable and fun outcome. It has served me and the rest of the old school community very well for many years. Unpredictability is absolutely, 100% a feature and not a bug.

I do not expect you to want to play like that, but the fact that you didn't even know that was a thing that people who aren't you wanted in a game points up how many of your assumptions in this argument are just based on ignorance of the fact not everybody who plays is you and what you consider a "bad outcome to be avoided" is what others consider "100% necessary for an interesting game".

If you didn't know that that explains this entire argument. While I know what you guys want (I can read) you have no idea that there's like all these people out there who want a different kind of game than that. If I was trying to make a game where HD level predicted difficulty of the encounter on all fronts then, yeah, I would've totally failed over and over for…over a decade now? Luckily I'm soooo not doing that. How did you miss that? Whose blog have you been reading?

[virgil]

I do not expect you to want to play like that, but the fact that you didn't even know that was a thing that people who aren't you wanted in a game points up how many of your assumptions in this argument are just based on ignorance.

Didn't you make an assumption that non-intrinsic bonuses never got larger than +10?

Still waiting on a response to my earlier post.

[angelfromanotherpin]

We all know that rpg.net mods are capricious and arbitrary, but I stumbled across Zak's permaban citation, and it's worth reading, if only for the somewhat confounded tone. I'm not going to link it, but it's not hard to find, and it includes a critique of his argument style that's going to sound familiar.

[DSMatticus]

Yes, Zak, tell us more about how the apprentice must never fail to disarm the master. That's a totally reasonable result for rules to produce and I'm sure it was your exact intention when you came up with that idea.

Alternatively: you are full of shit, and will say literally anything to avoid admitting you were wrong, up to and including telling us that mid-level fighters should be able to trip and disarm anything in the game automatically, including exact copies of themself with twice as many levels. Of course, the reality is you simply hadn't thought about it enough to realize the implications you are now asserting as intentional.

Now, I know which of the two you're going to go with publicly. But you know it's bullshit and I know it's bullshit.

Well, if you want an example that's already come up: Zak S proposed letting fighters use their to-hit rolls against a target's dexterity for certain combat maneuvers. To-hit scales with level; dexterity does not. The end result is that at a certain point, a fighter can't fail those combat maneuvers against opponents - even opponents who are the same level as him or higher.

Which rule is this?

DSM made a throwaway reference to a blog post of yours. We haven't read that blog post, and we don't care about what DSM is saying. It is not a requirement of good faith that we seek out a blog post and read it in order to find out if DSM is correct. It might be bad faith to argue based on DSM's conclusion if he was not a reliable source, but no one is doing that.

It's actually a quote someone else picked from the blog post that first lured Zak here. It's the "say yes to fifth-level fighters" bit.

[Mistborn]

Again one of those moments where, if this was a good faith argument, everyone on the entire forum reading would stop in their tracks and we hear a giant screeching sound and they'd all go What The Hell Are You Talking About DSMatticus

This is the point where while reading this I come to a screeching halt a go what the fuck is wrong with you Zak S. DSM pointed out that one of your rules involved a scaling attack roll against a static defense. That's something anyone who knows anything about game design would consider cause for concern. Now it's certainly imaginable that you system isn't broken, I haven't looked it up because I don't give a fuck. That said I think you need to start taking either more or less drugs but I'm not sure which.

[Zak S]

Yes, Zak, tell us more about how the apprentice must never fail to disarm the master. That's a totally reasonable result for rules to produce and I'm sure it was your exact intention when you came up with that idea.

Duh: the apprentice can easily disarm the master. And then the master can easily disarm the apprentice. Then both have taken the gamble of spending a round disarming rather than reducing the other guy's hit points. Do you guys think about these things before you type them?

[wotmaniac]

We all know that rpg.net mods are capricious and arbitrary, but I stumbled across Zak's permaban citation, and it's worth reading, if only for the somewhat confounded tone. I'm not going to link it, but it's not hard to find, and it includes a critique of his argument style that's going to sound familiar.

Fun read. Some people never learn.

[name_here]

It is the consensus of the forum that the entire damn point of having a level system is that higher level opponents are harder to beat and lower level opponents are easier to beat.

If that is so, then the forum has made a mistake--enemies should be unpredictable and require experiment to figure out which tactics you need to defeat them.

If you can figure out an opponent is lumbering and has little dexterity despite their level and so target it: good for you. However: beware the foe who figures out the same thing about you. The rule applies to PCs and NPCs alike...

We hold that a higher level should intrinsically mean harder to defeat, or why even have levels? If something is big and lumbering and high level, it should be more difficult for any character to defeat than something which is big and lumbering and low level. Something of a given level that is big and lumbering should be more vunerable to attacks targeting dex than a nimble creature of the same level. If you have a scaling bonus and a static defense, eventually it will always work against every target. Furthermore, it applying to PCs and NPCs alike is actually part of why this is such a problem. Assuming the DnD standard of a D20 and classes with full BaB, any character that can be hit by the maneuver without needing a critical success at level one will always be hit by the maneuver used by a level 20 full BaB guy except on a critical failure. Of course, there are other potential sources for bonuses to defense, but in DnD there are also other sources for bonuses to attack.

[Ancient History]

Yes, Zak, tell us more about how the apprentice must never fail to disarm the master. That's a totally reasonable result for rules to produce and I'm sure it was your exact intention when you came up with that idea.

Duh: the apprentice can easily disarm the master. And then the master can easily disarm the apprentice. Then both have taken the gamble of spending a round disarming rather than reducing the other guy's hit points. Do you guys think about these things before you type them?

To bring this back to the rule at hand, this is actually relevant and ties into one of the issues with the rule - applestacking. The problem with adding together incremental bonuses into one big bonus is very much analogous to the issue of an attack that scales with level and a target number that doesn't.

Let's consider again the Diplomacy issue in d20:

The basics are pretty straightforward: you have X ranks in a skill, you roll d20 and add your X ranks and Y bonus points against a variable target number Z, and if d20 + X + Y > Z, you succeed! Otherwise, you fail. So on the surface, it looks very functional, but there are some complications. For example, your skill ranks are capped by class and level, so that restricts your possible range of achievable target numbers somewhat; and especially at low levels the d20 roll is a very large variable compared to your skill ranks and bonuses. However, there is no (or relatively limited) cap on bonuses, and with the correct build a character at relatively low levels can reach very high target numbers without relying on the luck of the dice. This itself isn't necessarily broken...until you get to a skill like diplomacy. Diplomacy has static TNs, and while they are large, they are not so large as to be outside the effective range of a character that specializes in Diplomacy. The effect being that a character built in that specific way can literally talk their way out of almost any situation...including convincing Monsieur Dragon that he doesn't want to eat you, and instead wants to be your new best friend and fuck-buddy.

Now, that may or may not have been the intent of the designer; we don't know. It might have been a mistake or an overlook or the result of multiple designers not paying attention; it could have been the plan from the beginning. But the long and the short of it is that there is potential for a character to use this rules system to effectively break the game. It won't happen at every table, and maybe a gamemaster will see it happen once and then institute a ruling so that it never happens again, but it can objectively be called bad game design that such a flawed system made it into the game.

And of course, Zak S. agreed with me.

Agreed. Find that loophole in any system I wrote and then you'd have a bad rule. Nobody's found that--they just keep insisting they have and when pressed for specifics they explode in invective.

The issue here is that Diplomacy in d20 uses static target numbers, and that it is possible with a large enough bonus to achieve an unfair advantage. The same basic scenario is why applestacking is a concern for the social rule, and is analogous to the issue of an increasing attack bonus against a static defense.

The problem isn't, of course, that challenges are supposed to stay the same as the characters advanced - we expect 1st-level characters to fail more often at certain basic tasks than 6th or 10th-level characters - but that certain of these challenges force outcomes on characters irrespective of level. For example, if you have an unreasonably high diplomacy bonus, you can pretty much defeat any enemy by just talking to them. To draw a parallel to another argument that's come up in this thread, imagine a charm spell that didn't allow a saving throw.

[Zak S]

Cut to the chase, Ancient History:

To draw a parallel to another argument that's come up in this thread, imagine a charm spell that didn't allow a saving throw.

But…you still have to:

1.Provide a meaningful service to the person (not easy--and certainly not easy for a dragon, most things you could provide them are already theirs for the taking).

and

2. Have no competing interests to cancel your bonus (this is huge--most resources a PC would want other people want too)

and

3. Make a Charisma roll--which is often just as hard as a save

PLUS

4. They have to do it for each request. Unlike charm, not once and then they get what they want for the duration.

Why are you too stupid to address all this? Unless you type words which address these 4 points in your next response, I don't see how anyone could even pretend for a second you're arguing in good faith.

[virgil]

3. Make a Charisma roll--which is often just as hard as a save

No it's not. Your Charisma roll has no maximum bonus, while saving throws functionally do. If one apple is a +1 and two apples is a +2 (direct reference from you), then a hundred apples is +100. You can even just lie and say that tomorrow they'll get a hundred times what the competing interests offer.

4. They have to do it for each request. Unlike charm, not once and then they get what they want for the duration.

Requesting that they be your best buddy forever circumvents this restriction, and your rule doesn't prevent this.

[Zak S]

We hold that a higher level should intrinsically mean harder to defeat, or why even have levels?.

Did you get the news about hit points, or has that news not reached The Gaming Den yet? Anyway: even if they're equally easy to disarm,the master will have more hit points than the student. That's one example.

[Zak S]

3. Make a Charisma roll--which is often just as hard as a save

No it's not. Your Charisma roll has no maximum bonus, while saving throws functionally do.

Max bonus is +10 to your charisma on a roll-under. Already said that. Fake argument.

Requesting that they be your best buddy forever circumvents this restriction, and your rule doesn't prevent this.

Bonuses always come with time limits, that's in the rule as written in the OP. Plus that assumes that there are no other competing interests who would be affected by "best buddy"status ( a limitation not in Charm). Already said that. Fake argument.

[DSMatticus]

Yes, Zak, tell us more about how the apprentice must never fail to disarm the master. That's a totally reasonable result for rules to produce and I'm sure it was your exact intention when you came up with that idea.

Duh: the apprentice can easily disarm the master. And then the master can easily disarm the apprentice. Then both have taken the gamble of spending a round disarming rather than reducing the other guy's hit points. Do you guys think about these things before you type them?

First: just because a situation is symmetric does not mean it isn't stupid. Indeed, the very fact that two wildly asymmetrically powerful individuals are in this particular symmetric situation in the first place is exactly what makes it so very, very stupid.

Second: it's not much of a gamble. It's hard to go into specifics without nailing down the edition, but fists suck compared to magic stabbing bling. The apprentice and the master just straight up should disarm eachother. Which means the apprentice swordsman and his master actually resolve their dispute of "who is the greater swordsman?!" by punching eachother in the face over and over or something else stupid. Great ruling, amirite?

You're not going to get any traction here, and the condescending snark won't help you. You said a stupid thing, now eat your goddamn crow. That said, I'm done with you. You are too stubborn, obnoxious, and stupid to be worth engaging - I'm making these points for the record and possible benefit of others wondering what the source of our beef with you is, and I don't think your defense of "my ruling was perfect because high-level swordsmen should solve their conflicts with fisticuffs" is particularly compelling to anyone. I'm pretty sure you're actually doing me favors here.

To draw a parallel to another argument that's come up in this thread, imagine a charm spell that didn't allow a saving throw.

Fair warning: that point was already made to him. By several people. Several times. It did not shut him up. Zak S is essentially incapable of admitting fault, and so he will still tell you charm was a valid comparison because it's a comparison he made and if he made it he must defend it as valid.

Hey look, ninja'd by exactly the thing I was saying would happen. Seriously. Does anyone genuinely feel the need to continue this farce? What's the goal here? Where's the pot of gold at the end of this retarded rainbow?

[angelfromanotherpin]

Where's the pot of gold at the end of this retarded rainbow?

This thread becoming an ever-higher Google result for 'Zak S', increasing exposure for his humiliatingly toxic response to criticism and undermining his commercial success?

[Ancient History]

Why are you too stupid to address all this? Unless you type words which address these 4 points in your next response, I don't see how anyone could even pretend for a second you're arguing in good faith.

Not to cite shifting goalposts, but these aren't all applicable...but if you want me to talk about them, then fair enow.

1.Provide a meaningful service to the person (not easy--and certainly not easy for a dragon, most things you could provide them are already theirs for the taking).

and

2. Have no competing interests to cancel your bonus (this is huge--most resources a PC would want other people want too)

These are subjective restrictions open to assessment (and argument), not mechanical limitations. They depend entirely on the context of the situation, the individuals involved, how they've interacted, and perhaps more importantly the mood of the gamemaster: some GMs will be more permissive as to what constitutes a bonus-worthy feat and what doesn't. So these aren't really something you can consider in a strict mechanical assessment; the issue is simply that potential for abuse exists, because it is possible to accrue an overwhelming bonus.

3. Make a Charisma roll--which is often just as hard as a save

All of the actions we've discussed - Charisma roll, Diplomacy skill check, attack roll against AC - involve one character rolling against a static target number as a measure of whether or not they succeed in their action; barring a special ability, the character being rolled against doesn't generally have any way to influence the roll - a soak roll or saving throw or anything else. So saying that a CHA roll is as difficult as a saving throw doesn't apply here, whether or not it is correct. The point of a saving throw (or soak roll) is specifically to allow a character to respond to or modify a roll in some way - avoid some of the damage or effect. The CHA check, like all the other rolls against a static TN, doesn't allow a character to do that.

Which is why I drew the parallel to a charm spell without a saving throw; casting a charm spell might (depending on edition or system) require a spellcasting check or something, but if the caster hits the TN then the spell simply takes effect - no different than a CHA check or Diplomacy check or Attack that can't be opposed.

4. They have to do it for each request. Unlike charm, not once and then they get what they want for the duration.

This is a bit of semantics; it doesn't address the core issue, which is that the potential for abuse exists. We use charm as an example because like CHA and Diplomacy it can affect the character's interactions with another character, it doesn't matter in this context whether the duration is infinity or a single round. I could have used as an example flesh to stone or touch of death or the weak bladder cantrip from Hackmaster, and the same basic mechanical parallel would apply if they didn't allow a saving throw.

[Zak S]

First: just because a situation is symmetric does not mean it isn't stupid. Indeed, the very fact that two wildly asymmetrically powerful individuals are in this particular symmetric situation in the first place is exactly what makes it so very, very stupid.

Unsupported assertion. Just saying "OMG the way you guys play is stupid!" doesn't make it stupid.

The apprentice and the master just straight up should disarm eachother. Which means the apprentice swordsman and his master actually resolve their dispute of "who is the greater swordsman?!" by punching eachother in the face over and over or something else stupid. Great ruling, amirite?

If the 2 are having a fight over who is a better swordsman, then it's up to them whether they want to abandon swords.

If they are just having a fight then, yeah, sure, disarm, re-arm, throw sand in the guy's face, use terrain, do whatever. That's how all kinds of good swordfights in movies work.

So: false argument.

[virgil]

Max bonus is +10 to your charisma on a roll-under. Already said that. Fake argument.

No it's not. We are talking about the rule you presented, not a different rule where you add restrictions and modifiers.

Requesting that they be your best buddy forever circumvents this restriction, and your rule doesn't prevent this.

Bonuses always come with time limits, that's in the rule as written in the OP. Plus that assumes that there are no other competing interests who would be affected by "best buddy"status ( a limitation not in Charm). Already said that. Fake argument.

Bonuses are under a time limit. You gave no such time limit to any request made of someone.

Try again or perhaps admit that you have at least partially failed in your originally stated goal.

[Zak S]

1.Provide a meaningful service to the person (not easy--and certainly not easy for a dragon, most things you could provide them are already theirs for the taking).

and

2. Have no competing interests to cancel your bonus (this is huge--most resources a PC would want other people want too)

These are subjective restrictions open to assessment (and argument), not mechanical limitations. They depend entirely on the context of the situation, the individuals involved, how they've interacted,

That is why you fail. The fact that the efficacy of the tactic depends on the situation at the table and is different in different scenarios is exactly why it's good.

and perhaps more importantly the mood of the gamemaster:

If your GM makes rulings that are different depending on their mood, they are a bad GM and that's like saying "Your rule won't work without dice". No, it won't. A good and constant GM is a necessary piece of equipment.

it is possible to accrue an overwhelming bonus.

No, it is possible to get, at best, the same result as a successful Charm roll. Against one guy only.

The point of a saving throw (or soak roll) is specifically to allow a character to respond to or modify a roll in some way - avoid some of the damage or effect. The CHA check, like all the other rolls against a static TN, doesn't allow a character to do that.

#1 So? That doesn't make it easier
#2 "Competing interests" covers this functionally. If the NPC target sees competing interests, those mitigate. Already said that.
#3 If there are no competing interests (the only time there'd be no mitigation) then why wouldn't the NPC grant the request?

PC asks for gold.
NPC has no mitigation, UNLESS…the NPC has, let's see: kids, a spouse, or anyone they know whose services, goods or goodwill they could acquire with gold and want to. So: in the only vanishingly rare situation where there's no mitigation, it's likely in the NPCs best interest to give the PC gold so why should they be saving?

So you're totally wrong on all points. Again: unless you are admitting to arguing in bad faith--address all this stuff.

[Zak S]

Max bonus is +10 to your charisma on a roll-under. Already said that. Fake argument.

No it's not. We are talking about the rule you presented, not a different rule where you add restrictions and modifiers.

Even if you were too stupid to ask for a clarification, the max functional bonus on a roll-under is +19 with 1 always being failure. False argument.

Bonuses are under a time limit. You gave no such time limit to any request made of someone.

Someone makes a request to be their best buddy. The request expires. Now any other NPC in the world asks for something from the target requiring a violation of Best Buddy status. As soon as it's granted: Best Buddydom over. False argument.

And if you go "Oh but you didn't clarify this nitpick until you asked" well: you could say that about the original AD&D charm. For example: does a person realize they've been Charmed when it expires? Or that they were cast against if they successfully save? It's left unexplained and is a GM call.

So if you wanna say my rule is bad because I didn't clarify your nitpick, then you're just asking for Training Wheels rules. And if so: LOL.

[Gnorman]

"You must respond to exactly these points in exactly the way I require them, and once you do, I'm going to claim that your rebuttal is invalid because I've changed the goalposts, and then I'm going to threaten you with the terrible stigma of being accused of arguing in bad faith" is also arguing in bad faith.

You know what else is arguing in bad faith? Claiming that we're arguing in bad faith because we didn't attack Virgil or DSMatticus for something unrelated to the charges levied against you. That's some Soviet-level cognitive dissonance right there.[/b]

[A Man In Black]

Why are people arguing with this lunatic?

[Ancient History]

That is why you fail. The fact that the efficacy of the tactic depends on the situation at the table and is different in different scenarios is exactly why it's good.

The fact that the gamemaster determines a bonus based on their own judgment with no guidelines according to their understanding of the situation - or the phase of the moon, the tightness of their underwear, or any other factor - is not a recommendation for this rule; indeed, it is undistinguishable from not having a stated rule at all, where the gamemaster applies whatever modification they feel appropriate to any roll based on the circumstances at the table.

and perhaps more importantly the mood of the gamemaster:

If your GM makes rulings that are different depending on their mood, they are a bad GM and that's like saying "Your rule won't work without dice". No, it won't. A good and constant GM is a necessary piece of equipment.

I would agree that consistency is a highly desirable, even necessary trait in a good gamemaster. This gets back to the heart of the issue however - people play by rules to add consistency to the game, so that their actions can be arbitrated (at least partially) by an unbiased system. It's a large part on why people use published rules instead of homebrewing all of their own material; it's why homebrew material and gamemaster rulings should be - as you pointed out some time ago - consistent. The desire for consistency is often one of the driving points in arguments about rules, and it's part of the underlying issue with this one. We've mentioned before that a table to at least provide guidelines for what constitutes a bonus would have been beneficial, simply because it would help increase GM consistency - players would have a better idea how effective their individual actions might be.

it is possible to accrue an overwhelming bonus.

No, it is possible to get, at best, a successful Charm roll. Against one guy.

Your original rule, as mentioned and we can quote it again as necessary, did not specify an upper limit. At your table, in your system, you have said that you cap bonuses at +10; that may well be sufficient in your game to prevent abuse. However, in the original rule you gave no such bonus, so you left the door open to the potential of an overwhelming bonus.

Against one guy, sure. But think of the mouse that took the thorn from the lion's paw: sometimes one is enough.

The point of a saving throw (or soak roll) is specifically to allow a character to respond to or modify a roll in some way - avoid some of the damage or effect. The CHA check, like all the other rolls against a static TN, doesn't allow a character to do that.

#1 So? That doesn't make it easier

No it doesn't - unless you have an overwhelming bonus. For example, if you have two 1st level fighters identical in every respect except that one has a Hackmaster +12 sword, then obviously that fighter has an uncharacteristic and overwhelming advantage to hit (and damage, but that comes later).

And again, it's beside the point - the whole reason to have a soak roll or saving throw is to give a character the chance to mitigate their fate and not be at the mercy of a single roll initiated by another character in which that character might have a huge advantage.

#2 "Competing interests" covers this functionally. If the NPC target sees competing interests, those mitigate. Already said that.
#3 If there are no competing interests (the only time there'd be no mitigation) then why wouldn't the NPC grant the request?

I'm not going to pick apart your example, because frankly (and again) "competing interests" is a strictly subjective argument. It's not part of the mechanics, and it relies solely on the whims of the gamemaster as to when and if it applies.

And sure, the gamemaster should be consistent about it - but that can just mean that they're a consistent asshole, because almost every character (PC or otherwise) has some degree of self-interest. If you ask them to give up anything, that's got to conflict with their interest in not giving it up. That's part of the reason why social currency systems are so hard to model and implement in general, because humans can be both incredibly generous and murderously tightfisted and self-absorbed. It's a hard scale to cram into a single system, and you've essentially left the hard work of determining every such interaction up to the gamemaster to adjudicate on their own, with no reference or guide that GMs can maybe base their decisions on or PCs can expect to deal with.

Because there's no mechanical basis for that in the original ruling (aside from 1 apple apparently being worth +1), there's no mechanical argument that can be made here - the range of bonus is entirely up to the gamemaster. For you in your game, it's +0 to +10; for someone else it might be -100 to +100. We can only say, based on the original rule, that the potential for abuse exists.

So you're totally wrong on all points. Again: unless you are admitting to arguing in bad faith--address all this stuff.

Of the two of us, I think I'm the only one here that has been most accommodating in trying to address all of your points.

[Pseudo Stupidity]

If the 2 are having a fight over who is a better swordsman, then it's up to them whether they want to abandon swords.

If they are just having a fight then, yeah, sure, disarm, re-arm, throw sand in the guy's face, use terrain, do whatever. That's how all kinds of good swordfights in movies work.

All the good swordfights in movies are the characters whacking the swords out of each other's hands and then having a slapfest? No they fucking aren't. Picking up your weapon is not a free action, if disarming is optimal and against a static number you'll have Inigo and Roberts slap the swords out of each others' hands and then they'd just wrestle around for a while until somebody punched the other one hard enough. That's stupid as hell.

If disarming is your best fucking option you do not need to use terrain, you need to disarm your opponent and then beat them to death with your bare hands or have a way to draw a weapon without an action and stab them to death by carrying around a bunch of swords and ditching them whenever they get slapped out of your hands. Remember that epic swordfight where Inigo beat the six-fingered man because he had eight swords on his person? Or what about the one between Achillies and Hector where they quickly slapped the swords out of each others' hands and wrestled for a while. Oh oh, how about when Gandalf and the Balor hit the weapons out of each others' hands, tripped each other, and then went right to sweaty nut punching?

Name a single fight where both combatants effortlessly disarmed the other every single time somebody drew a weapon in popular cinema. That is what your stupid rule is telling me should happen in any fight where people have weapons that are more dangerous than fists. Your rule is terrible. It doesn't emulate fantasy or cinema, it emulates comedy.

[codeGlaze]

I don't know... slap fights sound pretty hilarious.