The Gaming Den

So, which are the most idiotic, fallacious, intelligence-insulting arguments you have heard from apologists? I'm talking of idiocy the likes of "there are no bad games, only bad gamers!"

Just on the Den you have Shitmuffin's argument from relativism, Elennsar's 'my feels refute your tautology,' and Occluded Sun's 'it is moral to exist unless I disapprove' so I'm not sure how much worse you could want to see.

I have a right-wing acquaintance who has said that 'there wouldn't have been eight Benghazi investigations if there wasn't some wrongdoing to find' with a straight face.

I don't know why this is in IMHO without at least some clarification of what you mean, because literally 95% of bad apologist arguments I can think of are religious nutbags.

The idea that you can run any setting with any game as long as your players play it in good faith.

This results in people frequently pushing games on you that are inappropriate for what you want, like Savage Worlds for campaign play, FATE for having a meaningful tactics minigame, or Apocalypse World for anything.

Compounding that, good faith sometimes just isn't enough. Telling people you want to run a Supers game doesn't in and of itself stop people from rolling The Punisher and then complaining when they don't get to make a "strategy roll" to kill Doctor Doom. Even the best supers games require the players to be way too good at GM mind reading, much less trying to do supers with FATE or AW or whatever 4rry heartbreaker is popular this week (I don't think any of those actually let you meaningfully stat out a teambuster or highfather anyway).

Sakuya Izayoi wrote:The idea that you can run any setting with any game as long as your players play it in good faith.

The good old "We don't need rules because WE are all 'good' players who have a gentleman's agreement", which basically translates to "We don't need good specific rules, because we might have vague possibly good ones I feel like we sort of adhere to but never talk about"

That's a good one.

Anything "Realizmz" is a contender, but the most recently observed incarnation of that "Are you a moron? OF COURSE the game (sometimes suddenly not saying when) doesn't follow the rules, it actually follows the Realizmz! Everyone knows and agrees on that!" is one of the worse incarnations I've seen of it.

Usually it's just used as a stupid defense of a stupid idea, rarely is it simply presented not just as a substitute for rules, but unironically as a clearly superior substitute for rules in play at utterly ambiguous intervals that everyone will just somehow all agree on and understand perfectly like that, because "What, of course it's like that, are you stupid?"

Well, Games Workshop once literally and without hyperbole suggested punching players in the face for building "cheesy" lists that 100% adhere to the rules. I'm all for being silly and saying "If you (do thing) then I will stamp on your colon", but these guys actually felt the problem was so much one of the player that it could only be solved by actual violence.

They try to claim you need to go by the fluff, so obviously there would never be a Land Raider in a 500 point Space Marines force. Even though the rules don't ban it and I'm willing to bet one of their official novels has described a scenario where there was like one Land Raider and one squad of Marines and that was the entire force. Which still won. Everything ends up being based on some varieties of "common sense", "forge the narrative/play the story", and "everybody has the same bullshit threshold". And if you violate these unwritten rules while adhering to the actual written rules that might be the result of an infinite monkeys experiment... you must be punched in the face.

Now, Guardians of Order have their own fucking manifesto about how there are no bad games, just bad gamers. You can find it at the beginning of their books. Feel free to supply your own masturbatory hand gesture. Warmachine used to have a similar one, designed to come across as a Powerthirst commercial for MEN WITH BALLS that also talks about how only SISSIES complain that the rules are shit, you just need to PLAY LIKE YOU HAVE A PAIR.

Koumei wrote: Now, Guardians of Order have their own fucking manifesto about how there are no bad games, just bad gamers.

Here is the manifesto:

• These rules are written on paper, not etched in stone tablets.
  Rules are suggested guidelines, not required edicts.
  If the rules don't say you can't do something, you can.
  There are no official answers, only official opinions.
  When dice conflict with the story, the story always wins.
  Min/Maxing and Munchkinism aren't problems with the game; they're problems with the player.
  The Game Master has full discretionary power over the game.
  The Game Master always works with, not against, the players.
  A game that is not fun is no longer a game - it's a chore.
  This book contains the answers to all things.
  When the above does not apply, make it up.

I've heard a bunch of bad arguments as far as gaming goes. There was one time when a 4venger (during the 4vengence crusade here) declared it was bad that you could stat out a chicken in 3e. I was in a lengthy argument on a pf facebook group where someone tried to argue that the diplomacy rules were good, didn't know of the existence of the 'ask a favor rule' then argued that despite the rule being there that there was no way that the good people in PF wanted people to actually 'use' it.

What about Monte(/He Who Shall Not Be Named)'s whole "I just don't want to design for assholes" thing. Does that count as apologetics, or just arrogant stupidity?

Prak wrote:What about Monte(/He Who Shall Not Be Named)'s whole "I just don't want to design for assholes" thing. Does that count as apologetics, or just arrogant stupidity?

That counts for wisdom, as he wrote that in response to the kind of players who see rpg rules as fictional world physics and axioms, instead of means to adjudicate conflicts at a gaming table.

How about ignoring late stage gameplay because the first stage of game play isn't a catastrophe? that's a delusion d20 has labored under since inception, basically, with the biggest culprit being 3.5 Dungeons and Dragons/Pathfinder.
Sure, the game degrades in a "everybody means something in this party" sense around 3rd and 4th level spells and is a farce from 6th level spells onwards, but like, whatever. The game totally has a "sweet spot."

Another one seems to be "we can balance base statistics and people receiving or buying abilities." No you can't. Witness base ability classes without spells being glorified bodyguards and single target gimmicks that really do not matter for about half of the 20 levels of a game.

Silva, I try not to quote Brilliant Gameologists here too often, but it's called for-

"If you're concerned with acting like a bunch of people sitting around a table playing a game, I have news for you... YOU ARE A BUNCH OF PEOPLE, SITTING AROUND A TABLE, PLAYING A GAME."

If a game designer writes up Musical Instrument in the equipment chapter as "this can be any sort of small, easily carried musical instrument. Anyone who passes a DC 10 Dex check may play a short tune and receive a +2 on interactions with NPCs in the rest of the scene," then you goddamned better fucking believe that my party will be a traveling minstrel show who starts every NPC interaction with our theme music on kazoo. Because the rules represent the world we are playing in, and in that world, small musical instruments are a DC 10 dex check and improve peoples' attitudes.

Edit: also, Silva just gave us a new idiotic apologist argument:
"rpg rules (are not) fictional world physics and axioms, (rather, they are solely a) means to adjudicate conflicts at a gaming table."

Prak wrote:Silva just gave us a new idiotic apologist argument

Its not far off how watsisname was using the realizmz argument I outlined above.

I would have a great deal more sympathy for the numerous variants on "of course, off screen/NPC only events don't follow the rules" argument if it weren't given almost exclusively as a defense of stupid rules that frequently do stupid things "on screen" and in interactions with PCs.

Going with "Off screen events do not need to be formally resolved, but should produce results at least possible/likely if they had been" is much better, and never "accidentally" looks like a gigantic failed excuse for really shitty rules.

Indeed, I'm focusing on tabletop apologist arguments.

...damn, today my google skills are crap, I can't find the referenced posts by Elennsar and SM.

Dogbert wrote:Indeed, I'm focusing on tabletop apologist arguments.

...damn, today my google skills are crap, I can't find the referenced posts by Elennsar and SM.

To be fair, Maxus' sig has a bunch of text designed to stop He Who Must Not Be Named from finding posts about himself with Google (which I copied into my own sig because why not).

Elennsar shouldn't be as hard to find though.

silva wrote:

Prak wrote:What about Monte(/He Who Shall Not Be Named)'s whole "I just don't want to design for assholes" thing. Does that count as apologetics, or just arrogant stupidity?

That counts for wisdom, as he wrote that in response to the kind of players who see rpg rules as fictional world physics and axioms, instead of means to adjudicate conflicts at a gaming table.

Basically anything bearva says in defense of anyone or any system. So nice to have such a wonderful example of terrible apologetic arguments right in a thread asking about them.

Huh, I'm not even a fan of the guy (MojteCook) or anything he created. In fact, I find him overrated as hell. Just so you know.

What about

Or... you know, they said that because it did sound bigger. I'm not sure that "hundreds of thousands" doesn't sound like more than "over a million". While if you put them side by side, people will say "over a million" is larger, people don't actually do very well with large numbers. People have some vague concept of what a hundred thousand dollars is; a house costs that. A million dollars, however, is a far more vague notion. So when people say "hundreds of thousands", it sounds bigger to them because they have some sense of scale; "That's lots of houses", they think, whereas a million is more difficult to grasp.

?

Oh, I got one: How about the one where it's ok if a rule is shitty or doesn't work or whatever, because you can just houserule it anyway?

Archmage Joda wrote:Oh, I got one: How about the one where it's ok if a rule is shitty or doesn't work or whatever, because you can just houserule it anyway?

I think the one you're looking for is 'this objectively shitty rule isn't shitty, because you can houserule it until it's acceptable.'

Yours is more a resigned acceptance of imperfection, not a furiously dishonest argument.

ishy wrote:What about

Or... you know, they said that because it did sound bigger. I'm not sure that "hundreds of thousands" doesn't sound like more than "over a million". While if you put them side by side, people will say "over a million" is larger, people don't actually do very well with large numbers. People have some vague concept of what a hundred thousand dollars is; a house costs that. A million dollars, however, is a far more vague notion. So when people say "hundreds of thousands", it sounds bigger to them because they have some sense of scale; "That's lots of houses", they think, whereas a million is more difficult to grasp.

?

Ahh, a classic.

silva wrote:Huh, I'm not even a fan of the guy (MojteCook) or anything he created. In fact, I find him overrated as hell. Just so you know.

He's a good idea guy, but he needs heavy reining in and editing.

[quote="PhoneLobster]The good old "We don't need rules because WE are all 'good' players who have a gentleman's agreement", which basically translates to "We don't need good specific rules, because we might have vague possibly good ones I feel like we sort of adhere to but never talk about"[/quote] Works fine until there's a disagreement. Then the world burns.

The test of a system isn't always so much how it behaves when it works, but what happens when it fails.

Occluded Sun wrote:The test of a system isn't always so much how it behaves when it works, but what happens when it fails.

You will note that typically adherents to "We're all good players with a gentleman's agreement so we don't need working rules!" will insist that "gentleman's agreement" and "good players" means they NEVER hit any sort of failure point.

They don't have a failure/disagreement mitigating contingency rule, and generally will just repeat the whole gentleman's agreement thing as an explanation as to why they do not need one just like they don't need other better rules.

The more they are pig headed about how perfect and unfailing and all-solving their unspoken good players' social contract is the less confidence I have in their ability to survive even the most minor disagreement when, not if, it crops up.

PhoneLobster wrote:

Occluded Sun wrote:The test of a system isn't always so much how it behaves when it works, but what happens when it fails.

You will note that typically adherents to "We're all good players with a gentleman's agreement so we don't need working rules!" will insist that "gentleman's agreement" and "good players" means they NEVER hit any sort of failure point.

They don't have a failure/disagreement mitigating contingency rule, and generally will just repeat the whole gentleman's agreement thing as an explanation as to why they do not need one just like they don't need other better rules.

The more they are pig headed about how perfect and unfailing and all-solving their unspoken good players' social contract is the less confidence I have in their ability to survive even the most minor disagreement when, not if, it crops up.

But that is okay, because even the mildest disagreement is clearly demonstrative of the fact that someone is a bad player who is bad. Someone being whichever person the DM likes least out of the disagreeing parties.