Your Rule Sucks: The Zak S Social Currency Edition

[RadiantPhoenix]

Before I deal with any of the other stuff--why isn't the entire board attacking Virgil for writing this crazy thing right now? All you have to do to get a Charm spell is be the right class and level and all you have to do to use it is the other guy fails a save.

All you need to make a Charisma check is have a Charisma score, which everyone has. Having to be the right class/level very specifically means not everyone can do it.

Even corpses and skeletons have a charisma score. It's 1.

IIRC, corpses don't but skeletons do.

[TheFlatline]

All you need to make a Charisma check is have a Charisma score, which everyone has. Having to be the right class/level very specifically means not everyone can do it.

Even corpses and skeletons have a charisma score. It's 1.

IIRC, corpses don't but skeletons do.

According to my google human zombies have a charisma of 1.

http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Human_Zombie

So maybe I should have said ambulatory, shuffling corpses.

[virgil]

All you need to make a Charisma check is have a Charisma score, which everyone has. Having to be the right class/level very specifically means not everyone can do it.

Even corpses and skeletons have a charisma score. It's 1.

IIRC, corpses don't but skeletons do.

Let me throw in a qualifier on the definition of 'everyone', so we can head off further reprimands on my unclear language, I am specifically referring to PCs.

EDIT: Extra bit of contrariness. Comparing Charisma checks to Charm's effects after a failed save...60% of the time, Charm works every time. You know, unlike Charisma checks which only work 60% of the time; or more, since the bonuses are unbounded.

[DSMatticus]

Can someone condense what is going on in this thread truthfully?

A long time ago in a galaxy far away (i.e. half a year ago right here), we had a thread about MTP and rulings vs rules, and someone cited a Zak S blog as an example of good on-the-spot rulings. There was argument, and Zak S showed up to defend his playstyle and his ability to make super-awesome rulings. He invited us to challenge him with a problem that needed a ruling, PhoneLobster took him up on that, he gave his ruling. By the end, the thread was something like 30 pages long and had covered a bajillion different things.

Because Zak S happens to perfectly exemplify a position and a set of (fallacious) arguments that a lot of posters around here hate, sometimes someone will name drop him as a reference or comparison ("that's the same argument Zak S made - it was stupid then and it's stupid now"). This is arguably bad taste, but it's also a bad idea[/b] because saying Zak S's name summons him and rekindles old arguments, immediately derailing the thread. PhoneLobster, everyone else: stop fucking saying his name. Just let it go.

Anyway, PhoneLobster said his name in the Old Man Henderson thread and the thread exploded. AncientHistory made this thread (an attempt at containment?), giving the context leading up to Zak S's ruling and a breakdown of why it failed.

Why is everyone so hung up about rules on this forum, especially considering you're playing RPG's where there's no winners or losers?

I want to cover a couple of things in response, and I hope you won't read any vitriol or personal attacks into it. I'm rather hoping to be helpful, not confrontational.

Firstly, this is something of a minor aside: just because a game isn't competitive doesn't mean you don't win or lose. Solitaire is a single player game, and it's a game you can win or lose. Arkham Horror is a cooperative game, and it's a game you win or lose. TTRPG's don't really have "win" states or "loss" states, but you can have goals (save the princess from the dragon, stop the BBEG from resurrecting his bigger, badder evil guy friends) and accomplishing those goals will change how the story unfolds. You can call it a personal win or a personal loss.

Secondly, much more importantly: you're assuming that the rules in a TTRPG are there to hand out wins and losses. I would say in the overwhelming majority of cases, that's just not true. They're there to:
1) Codify expectations. If you sit a bunch of people down at a table and tell them to roleplay a medieval fantasy story, everyone is going to have different ideas of what that means and what should and should not happen in the story. By putting the specifics into the rules, you put everyone on the same page.

2) Consistency. The rules don't change over time, but if you've been pulling rulings out of thin air for a couple months you're going to start forgetting them. Even if you're writing them down, it's going to quickly be harder to find them in your notes than it is to look them up in an actual book with an actual index.

3) Rulings have to be made on the spot, because stopping the game for fifteen minutes to an hour while you figure things out is awful. Rulebooks are made with thought and deliberation. Some of them are ass, because the people making them are terrible at their job, but generally more development time means better quality.

[TheFlatline]

Actually I was sort of backing you up virgil. Sorry if it came off snarky towards you.

[virgil]

Actually I was sort of backing you up virgil. Sorry if it came off snarky towards you.

Oh, I understand and harbor not even an inkling of ill-will. It just reminded me that Zak might think that as the edge he needs to tear me down, and it seems a good idea to cut him off so he doesn't strip and do the Pee Wee Herman Tequila Dance or something in victory.

[TheFlatline]

2) Consistency. The rules don't change over time, but if you've been pulling rulings out of thin air for a couple months you're going to start forgetting them. Even if you're writing them down, it's going to quickly be harder to find them in your notes than it is to look them up in an actual book with an actual index.

Consistency also applies to fairness and predictability. Without rules you're back to cowboys and indians "I hit you" "No you didn't!". Without rules nothing gets resolved.

Without rules in TTRPGs I have no clue if I'm likely to succeed at something or not before I do it. Sometimes this is okay, but mostly it sucks ass because you're basically living and dying at the whim of the GM, which is mastubatory theater. You need rules to know if you are going to likely fall down that chasm or not when you try to jump it. Leaving things to GM Fiat is terribad because you simply *have no clue*. You could think that 5 foot chasm is pretty easily jumped, but your GM may think that's a difficult jump and kill you off when you thought you were doing something trivial.

That's the problem with Zak's ruling. It's just the thought process that GM Fiat goes by. It's not a rule. I have no understanding of the social system knowing his thought process. I just know how he's going to pull something out of his ass. So I may save the kingdom and expect a big social buff and Zak decides "fuck it you have a +1 for 10 years because the king is way more into banging his mistress right now." but I had no fucking way of knowing what his decision was going to be until he made it.

Not to mention that it is a reputation system, and basically almost identical to the reputation system advocated in 3.x with like 2 caveats added to it, so Zak is so far off course that he isn't even wrong anymore.

Of course, much like any good hipster Zak is also good at moving the goalposts, so wherever he ends up that's clearly where he intended to go and it's our fault for not realizing that to begin with.

[Zak S]

"A Charm spell is not easy to get or use" is still crazy

My rule:

1. Only applies to someone you perform a meaningful service for (meaningful to them) or other action (intimidating action, etc)
2. Only applies to that one target
3. Has a deadline
4. Depends on a die roll for every single separate request

Charm

1. All you have to do is the be the right level or class
2. All the target has to do is fail a save
3. Applies to all requests
4. Only works for certain spellcasting classes (or people with access to magic items), but is a first level spell

Looking at it overall--are Charm spells rare in games? No. Are they "hard to use"? Not even a little.

As soon as someone says ""A Charm spell is not easy to get or use" they either don't know anything about D&D or they aren't arguing in good faith. The fact that nobody is jumping on Virgil for this is pretty good evidence you guys are not actually engaging here, just typing to type.

[Sakuya Izayoi]

Why is everyone so hung up about rules on this forum, especially considering you're playing RPG's where there's no winners or losers?

I mean, I could understand splitting hairs about rules concerning a wargame or a boardgame. RPGs in my experience have always been quasi-games.

Sorry for the newb question, just trying to get an understanding of the vitriol going on here.

The short of it is, rulings can and will take place, because of the nature of RPGs as you described. The Den's general principle, as I've come to understand it under a short while of lurking, is that for a ruling to become a rule, permanently, it should be superior to both published rules, antecedent, and improvisation.

The veneration of rulings and "Rule Zero" can get out of hand, which is what riles people up, especially on a certain RPG site.

[TheFlatline]

Actually I was sort of backing you up virgil. Sorry if it came off snarky towards you.

Oh, I understand and harbor not even an inkling of ill-will. It just reminded me that Zak might think that as the edge he needs to tear me down, and it seems a good idea to cut him off so he doesn't strip and do the Pee Wee Herman Tequila Dance or something in victory.

Yeah my point was that "everyone" down to badgers and hedgehogs and skeletons and brainless animated corpses could participate in the reputation thing, while only wizard classes with a sufficient intelligence could cast charm.

[chonz]

Can someone condense what is going on in this thread truthfully?

A long time ago in a galaxy far away (i.e. half a year ago right here), we had a thread about MTP and rulings vs rules, and someone cited a Zak S blog as an example of good on-the-spot rulings. There was argument, and Zak S showed up to defend his playstyle and his ability to make super-awesome rulings. He invited us to challenge him with a problem that needed a ruling, PhoneLobster took him up on that, he gave his ruling. By the end, the thread was something like 30 pages long and had covered a bajillion different things.

Because Zak S happens to perfectly exemplify a position and a set of (fallacious) arguments that a lot of posters around here hate, sometimes someone will name drop him as a reference or comparison ("that's the same argument Zak S made - it was stupid then and it's stupid now"). This is arguably bad taste, but it's also a bad idea[/b] because saying Zak S's name summons him and rekindles old arguments, immediately derailing the thread. PhoneLobster, everyone else: stop fucking saying his name. Just let it go.

Anyway, PhoneLobster said his name in the Old Man Henderson thread and the thread exploded. AncientHistory made this thread (an attempt at containment?), giving the context leading up to Zak S's ruling and a breakdown of why it failed.

Why is everyone so hung up about rules on this forum, especially considering you're playing RPG's where there's no winners or losers?

I want to cover a couple of things in response, and I hope you won't read any vitriol or personal attacks into it. I'm rather hoping to be helpful, not confrontational.

Firstly, this is something of a minor aside: just because a game isn't competitive doesn't mean you don't win or lose. Solitaire is a single player game, and it's a game you can win or lose. Arkham Horror is a cooperative game, and it's a game you win or lose. TTRPG's don't really have "win" states or "loss" states, but you can have goals (save the princess from the dragon, stop the BBEG from resurrecting his bigger, badder evil guy friends) and accomplishing those goals will change how the story unfolds. You can call it a personal win or a personal loss.

Secondly, much more importantly: you're assuming that the rules in a TTRPG are there to hand out wins and losses. I would say in the overwhelming majority of cases, that's just not true. They're there to:
1) Codify expectations. If you sit a bunch of people down at a table and tell them to roleplay a medieval fantasy story, everyone is going to have different ideas of what that means and what should and should not happen in the story. By putting the specifics into the rules, you put everyone on the same page.

2) Consistency. The rules don't change over time, but if you've been pulling rulings out of thin air for a couple months you're going to start forgetting them. Even if you're writing them down, it's going to quickly be harder to find them in your notes than it is to look them up in an actual book with an actual index.

3) Rulings have to be made on the spot, because stopping the game for fifteen minutes to an hour while you figure things out is awful. Rulebooks are made with thought and deliberation. Some of them are ass, because the people making them are terrible at their job, but generally more development time means better quality.

Nothing personally taken, and I actually appreciate you clarifying it.

I guess it comes down to why everyone as a group is sitting down at the table to begin with. I've played with rules lawyers in the past, and typically we wouldn't invite them back when they begin splitting hairs on vague or unclear rules, or got angry at a DM who they accused to have made stuff up on the fly. Personally, having just read through Zak's blog, I find his take on things to be pretty awesome, but everyone around here seems to dog on him for petty reasons. No offense, just my take after seeing this thread. Thank you for putting that together, makes sense to me.

[TheFlatline]

Why is everyone so hung up about rules on this forum, especially considering you're playing RPG's where there's no winners or losers?

I mean, I could understand splitting hairs about rules concerning a wargame or a boardgame. RPGs in my experience have always been quasi-games.

Sorry for the newb question, just trying to get an understanding of the vitriol going on here.

The short of it is, rulings can and will take place, because of the nature of RPGs as you described. The Den's general principle, as I've come to understand it under a short while of lurking, is that for a ruling to become a rule, permanently, it should be superior to both published rules, antecedent, and improvisation.

The veneration of rulings and "Rule Zero" can get out of hand, which is what riles people up, especially on a certain RPG site.

Because at the end of the day you're asking someone to invest usually money, but at least time and effort into learning a rule set. There is an expenditure of valuable commodity here. Period. Defaulting to Rule Zero/MTP and expecting that expenditure is kind of insulting, because that's stuff we learned when we were like 2.

Rule sets are meant to arbitrate conflict resolution in a neutral manner, because the designers aren't involved in your game and have nothing invested in your game. Saying "Just make shit up lol" is arguably not even an answer to "Did I hit this guy with my sword or not?" because it doesn't resolve the conflict. At all.

[virgil]

Looking at it overall--are Charm spells rare in games? No.

Compared to Charisma checks, since everyone has a Charisma score, yes they are. And comparisons are what's being made, otherwise you wouldn't have brought up the spell to begin with

Are they "hard to use"? Not even a little.

If you're not the right class/level, it's impossible. If you are the right class/level, you have a finite chance of success because save bonuses have discrete maximums, while your rule has no such constraint on the bonus.

Also, the first three restrictions on your rule that you mention also apply to Charm. It only applies to one target, has a deadline, and only applies to someone you perform a meaningful action toward (casting action). In theory, you could just make your one request be "follow my future requests in the most favorable light possible" and recreate the effects of Charm (after the failed save) in every single way.

[DSMatticus]

Why is everyone so hung up about rules on this forum, especially considering you're playing RPG's where there's no winners or losers?

I mean, I could understand splitting hairs about rules concerning a wargame or a boardgame. RPGs in my experience have always been quasi-games.

Sorry for the newb question, just trying to get an understanding of the vitriol going on here.

The short of it is, rulings can and will take place, because of the nature of RPGs as you described. The Den's general principle, as I've come to understand it under a short while of lurking, is that for a ruling to become a rule, permanently, it should be superior to both published rules, antecedent, and improvisation.

The veneration of rulings and "Rule Zero" can get out of hand, which is what riles people up, especially on a certain RPG site.

MTP and rulings are free. Everyone can make things up on the spot with their skullmeat. If it's going in a book you expect people to spend money buying and time reading, it has to be better than that. So systems that depend heavily on MTP get a lot of derision, and justly; they're selling snake oil.

Personally, having just read through Zak's blog, I find his take on things to be pretty awesome

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. It's a bad ruling.

But Zak S is somewhat stubbornly insisting that his rulings are great and he doesn't need no stinking rules and he will defend every ruling he has made to the death - even the ones that have obvious problems, like the social mechanic discussed in this thread. I don't know why. I seriously do not know why. But the insane insistence that his shit doesn't stink makes him almost a hyperbolic parody of his own position. It's not that he's arguing that rulings have advantages that make their disadvantages worth it, he's defending the quality of his rulings on their own merits. And some of those rulings are very obviously bad to everyone but him.

[wotmaniac]

But it has everything to do with demonstrating your flawed premise.

Nope: in the economy in the D&D setting (which is what we're discussing: a game), people don't just give away land for trinkets just like monsters aren't generous guys who immediately give adventureres huge sums of xp-granting gold on sight. So: you're lying or mistaken.

So tell me, why does that not happen? Surely it could; but why doesn't it?
Is it because it strains credulity? No, that can't be it, because we actually do have RL historical precedent for that. So I ask again -- why?

Diplomancer is a thing (and in multiple systems, no less) -- and it is well documented why that shit is undesirable.

zak responds:

Appeal to absent authority. Try harder. Again: address the contrast with the Charm spell--which is generally more powerful.

wotmaniac responds vaguely and bafflingly:

1) No, this was demonstrating what happens (exactly and literally) with a rule like what you have proposed.

Where? Quote that thing. Nobody in the thread has provided an example of this.

Dude, it's a pervasive trope/meme throughout the RPG-playing world ..... Look: it even has its own TVTropes entry and everything. For further read, try this.
"Fred the Diplomancer" first appeared waaaaay back ('06?) on the Gleemax forums (now defunct); and was probably the best example (but certainly not the first) of all that is wrong with Diplomacy.
(btw, quick anecdote here: I personally first experienced this type of exploit back in the '90's when I first played with GURPS and White Wolf. The abuse-ability of 3.x's diplomacy rules was readily apparent the second I opened the book ... and apparently to the entire internet-using RPG public as well. My point being, there is a looooong history of broken-ass social mechanics in RPGs; and neither D&D3.x nor your half-assed rule are any different -- you need to pull your head out of the sand once in a while)

2) I don't give a fuck about Charm -- you've proposed a Diplomacy-like system that is no better than the already-fucked-to-hell social systems already out there. Charm isn't even in this.

That is just repeating what you already said "Some allegedly equivalent rule somewhere is wrong so you're allegedly similar rule is". We just covered the problem with that.

*sigh*
This has already been covered by someone else; but apparently I have to reiterate it as well:
1) Charm is irrelevant in this issue. Your proposed rule is about a simple social interaction, not magic. Apples-to-apples comparison requires us to compare it to other social interaction mechanics.
2) Charm, being a magical effect, is replicable only a very few times in an entire day; while a mundane social interaction mechanic has unlimited use -- this is a significant distinction.
3a) Charm allows for a relatively easy save that doesn't scale very well (i.e., really only useful on low-level mooks). Additionally, half the creatures in the game are flat-out immune to it ..... there's no immunity to social interaction (well, other than "mindless" creatures - for which there are work-arounds for that as well - , but whatever).
3b) Charm is a temporary effect that wears off quickly, and is a stand-alone effect. Social interaction is open-ended and arbitrary in its duration, and the magnitude of its effect builds on itself.

Top to bottom, it's a bullshit comparison.

No, good rules give you a clear, objective input→output relationships (and, as such, require no adjudication ..... more to the point, they're self-adjudicating). There are PLENTY of rules that do this.

Zak:

How desperately vague. Give us a rule that can't be broken by stress as extreme as (your above example) "change the assumptions of the game so the people who distribute kingdoms are so generous with the xp-granting material in the game that it is any players' basically for the asking". Give us that rule now.

wotmaniac:

Pay attention -- the opposite of "clear, objective" is "murky, subjective" ..... which is what you've given us.

#1: You dishonestly dodged the issue--you claimed to know RPG rules that couldn't be ruined by poor adjudication and insane stress and then can't provide an example.

It's not my issue to dodge -- you are the one dodging the issue. The actual issue at hand is that your rules-writing process[/i] is flawed, and you're operating from flawed premises. That's my (and others') point.
But okay, I'll play this silly little game:
Just about anything can be broken with enough tinkering -- duh. But that's not what we're talking about.
The Jump skill is pretty straight forward. You have very clear and objective input→output parameters. You may/may not agree with the scale of the outputs; but it is clear and objective, nonetheless. Is it abusable? Sure -- again, with enough dumpster diving, anything is abusable.
Your social interaction mechanic is completely subjective; and the input→output relationships are very murky, requiring a lot of eyeballing. If that's cool for you and your table, that's fine -- but it doesn't mean that is universally a good rule, and that quality of "requires a lot of eyeballing" is the exact opposite of "clear and objective". Much of the criticism of your rule is that it is neither clear nor objective in its input→output.
And your inability to accept that is one of the core flaws in your premise.
Also, bad rules don't serve as justification of more bad rules.
Also, Frank covered this pretty well a while back:

MTP is usually used in the context of "that's just MTP". Magical Teaparty is the first RPG element. It's free. And we can use it to mind caulk anything. That's not revolutionary, and the results aren't predictable.

So when someone says they have a cool system of handling something, and that "system" is MTP, it would not be unusual at all for someone on the Den to say "That's just MTP." And even though tone doesn't carry over text on the interwebs terribly well, I want to assure you that the sentence would be absolutely dripping with scorn. But it wouldn't be dismissive and contemptuous because MTP is inherently bad, it would be such because the delivered product would be literally the equal of what a five year old could do.

If a five year old does a stick figure in crayon, it is charming and goes on the fridge. If a grown man does one and asks why I don't want it on my fridge, I don't think that needs a reasoned response. It deserves a dismissive and cruel comment. And I am sure that it would get one.

But what MTP is, fundamentally, is worse than every single other rule in your game. At least, it fucking better be. Because MTP is free and takes up zero space. So absolutely any rule you write that isn't better than MTP is something you should cut in editing. Which doesn't mean MTP is "bad" or that it doesn't have a place. It just means that every single rule you include in your game is supposed to be better than MTP.

-Username17

Because your rule boils down to "MTP, but worse".

#2: To repeat this for the THIRD TIME IN TWO PAGES (again: how stupid do you have to be to not even notice the refutation of your point?)

The charge leveled against me (which I was responding to) resulting in the challenge was not "Oh Zak, you're so bad at explaining things to people who are completely hostile to you, know each other better than you, and very stupid" the charge was that I couldn't design a rule that worked quickly.

I claimed at the time, and I re-claim now that I was not pretending to write a rule for publication. Folks are focusing on their real or pretended incomprehension because it is the only way to explain their previous incredulity at the rule that doesn't make them sound as stupid as they are.

Since I can--and have--countered all the objections to the actual rule itself (that is: the actual behavior at the table I describe) and people are sitting there going …."Ok, wait, that does make sense now you explain it…." the only way to save face is say their earlier scorn was based on "Oh I didn't understand because you're so bad at writing" (not because insane rancor and stupidity blinded me to a perfectly usable rule).

While this does shift the fault for their not knowing what they're on about back to me, it asks me to defend a position I have not taken up--that I am great at communicating with bad morons. I am not that thing, by a long shot, and have never pretended to be. I simply am a guy who--like nearly every GM I have ever played with--can make up a rule that works, and clarify it when asked.

That is the thing I was asked to do. That is the thing I did. That is the thing I can defend.

Just because you keep repeating something doesn't make it less invalid.
Yes, I understand that you weren't attempting publication with this rule -- and that has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the rule is flawed. And your insistence of "not for publication" - and using it as a defense - is you explicitly admitting that the proposed rule needs to be "taken with a grain of salt", so to speak. But the fact that you felt the need to use this type of defense demonstrates that you yourself understand that it is flawed. And it is okay to admit that. This board is chocked full of abandoned bullshit attempts at writing rules. That's part of the learning process. But, in contrast, the deeper you dig in your heels "BESTEST RULE EVAR", the dumber you look.

Just because you have had good results at your table, with your group, doesn't mean that the same results are replicable at other tables with other groups. And once you release something into the wilds, you can't control how other people will use it. The less complete and less stable a rule is, the more people with have problems with it. And here at the Den, the people here have more experience at deconstructing and evaluating rules than is necessarily healthy -- so, when they tell you a given rule has objective problems, then they're probably right. The sooner you separate yourself from your own personal biases, the better off you'll be.

The more clarification a rule needs, the more poorly conceived that rule is. Just because you are handy with the caulking gun doesn't mean that it's a good rule to begin with. As a matter of fact, the more you have to play wack-a-mole with said caulking gun, the more objectively bad your rule is (as demonstrated by the continuous need to patch it).

Your "defense" of your position has been systematically disassembled across dozens of pages and multiple threads -- so no, you absolutely have not succeeded in either satisfying the challenge or in the defense of your position. It's okay to fail/be wrong -- the inability to accept that is not okay. You haven't countered shit -- you've done nothing but move goalposts and baselessly insult people. Get fucked.

[Zak S]

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.

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?

In the maneuvers I describe, there is no reason to assume that a high-enough level fighter shouldn't do the kinds of touch-based maneuvers I describe at (pretty much) will (barring rolling a 1--always failure, or modifiers pushing a the target number up).

The fact that you think a fighter should always have to roll a certain number to hit someone higher level than them does not make that a game necessity at all. You should be completely ripped apart at this point for stating your opinion as if it were fact like this.

[virgil]

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?

[name_here]

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.

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

In the maneuvers I describe, there is no reason to assume that a high-enough level fighter shouldn't do the kinds of touch-based maneuvers I describe at (pretty much) will (barring rolling a 1--always failure, or modifiers pushing a the target number up).

The fact that you think a fighter should always have to roll a certain number to hit someone higher level than them does not make that a game necessity at all. You should be completely ripped apart at this point for stating your opinion as if it were fact like this,

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.

[nockermensch]

Why is everyone so hung up about rules on this forum, especially considering you're playing RPG's where there's no winners or losers?

I mean, I could understand splitting hairs about rules concerning a wargame or a boardgame. RPGs in my experience have always been quasi-games.

Sorry for the newb question, just trying to get an understanding of the vitriol going on here.

Some people like to believe they have a measure of control over their characters, so that they succeed or fail mostly based on how mechanically sound their plans are.

In a game like Apocalypse World, the only skill you need to be good at is "being liked by the DM". Since a very large part of everything that happens in AW is explicitly under the DM's whims, it's not really important to think about the game world. Instead, the optimum strategy becomes to figure how to fall on the DM's graces so that your character has a good run.

[Leress]

Why is everyone so hung up about rules on this forum, especially considering you're playing RPG's where there's no winners or losers?

I mean, I could understand splitting hairs about rules concerning a wargame or a boardgame. RPGs in my experience have always been quasi-games.

Sorry for the newb question, just trying to get an understanding of the vitriol going on here.

That's an easy question to answer, for the most part this is a game design forum. An RPG like any game has rules and they are the foundation of any game. If the foundation is poorly made than this can cause a lot of problems later on. The setting and fluff details can be easily change are more subjective than the rules. Now the is definitely disagreement on the mechanics of any rule created and what input/outputs should occur. This is also a place with very few hard rules of conduct (every so often new forum rule come out) but that mean a lot of the passive aggressive speak is gone and can be frank about what they think.

TLDR; We have vitriol, because we like RPG and want to see them get better.

[Zak S]

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...

[...You Lost Me]

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?

In the maneuvers I describe, there is no reason to assume that a high-enough level fighter shouldn't do the kinds of touch-based maneuvers I describe at (pretty much) will (barring rolling a 1--always failure, or modifiers pushing a the target number up).

The fact that you think a fighter should always have to roll a certain number to hit someone higher level than them does not make that a game necessity at all. You should be completely ripped apart at this point for stating your opinion as if it were fact like this.

Do you actually think about the consequences of your proposed rules?

[Kaelik]

In theory, you could just make your one request be "follow my future requests in the most favorable light possible" and recreate the effects of Charm (after the failed save) in every single way.

Seems like the best thing is to go give a bunch of apples to the local temple of a god and then ask him for his divine ranks, so that you can get everything you want for yourself later.

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

You've said something like this several times now. It is really weird that you keep saying that. First of all, it is perfectly plausible that DSM is right, because you are wrong about literally everything you say about the things we do know about, but completely separate and apart from that... people do not work that way.

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.

Even if we did in fact know your blog post, and did in fact disagree with DSM, it still does not follow that we must, in order to be arguing in good faith, jump on him. First of all, doing so would be deviating from the Thread topic. And while I can appreciate that you want that, because the thread topic is how much your social rule sucks, we don't have a pressing desire to deviate from the topic. Secondly, people have a finite amount of time and give a fuck in their lives. They might prefer spending it on something they care about, like how much your social rule sucks, rather than something they don't care about, like how much or whether at all some throwaway tripping rule also sucks.

[wotmaniac]

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...

You are conflating "interesting, unexpected encounters" with "consistency with the basic expectations of the game".
Yes, throwing 8 levels of rogue on a goblin can surprising and interesting. Swapping/customizing feats on a stone giant can make for an interesting encounter.
However, any given "level 12 bruiser" should operate, for the most part, like most other "level 12 bruisers".
Not letting your players know in advance that the rakshasa has 5 extra levels of sorcerer is fine -- but it goddamned better operate like a fucking level 12 rakshasa (as opposed to the stock level-7).
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.

[RadiantPhoenix]

According to my google human zombies have a charisma of 1.

http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Human_Zombie

So maybe I should have said ambulatory, shuffling corpses.

I did, in fact, assume you meant inanimate corpses.