Quote from: beejazz;513563Ultimately I think people on both sides of many mechanical arguments make the mistake that thought experiments like this are really meant for play, though I stand by my assertion that if a rule depends on a specific context to function, it should really be called out in the advice section.

I agree with B.T.
Diplomacy rules are just stupid. Not just at their implementation but right there as an idea.

The game only needs a wisdom or charisma check in place of the "diplomacy" skill. Do you have any advantages like good use of language or knowing the character you are discussing with? Ok, get a bonus to your roll.

In some way, 5e has some good ideas. I hope it does not end to be the "vaporware" Frank implies, but Frank is really caustic you know.

Quote from: beejazz;513563Ultimately I think people on both sides of many mechanical arguments make the mistake that thought experiments like this are really meant for play, though I stand by my assertion that if a rule depends on a specific context to function, it should really be called out in the advice section.

Yeah, maybe not.  But the theoretical exercise depends on the whole problematic notion of RAW.

There's a kind of hidden victory condition where you win by forcing the DM to house rule (even if it's only a theoretical DM making theoretical house rules.)

If you don't accept the notion of RAW then purely theoretical builds are a complete nonsense.

Quote from: Dog Quixote;513565Gm: so you are in front of Sauron what do you say.

Player: I try to convince him that he should be my friend.

GM: Ok that's going to be difficult, he seems to have his angry face on, what do you say.

Player: I...


Honestly, who lets the players roll without at least coming up with some kind of reason for what they want to do?  If the player does come up with something, then the roll is very heavily dependent on context.  Maybe he can convince Sauron that he wants to defect from all those human and elf forces.  Fine, Sauron believes him and lets him wander perhaps, or makes him a servant.

It really doesn't matter what the rules say here.  Long standing GM practice at adjudicating skills in many systems trumps whatever shit is supposed to be RAW (That mythical non-existent thing).  It's the same reason the supposed brokenness of skill challenges in 4e doesn't bother me.  I don't need them, I know how to set DCs and adjudicate skill rolls.

I am an experienced DM who knows better, therefore the rule is not bad.

That said, RP dependent DCs, sane levelling progression, and few to no stat boosting items is my fix. You want a better designed skill from the get-go look at bluff. Context dependent DCs for the flustered new DM who doesn't already have years of play under his belt.

Quote from: Dog Quixote;513568Yeah, maybe not.  But the theoretical exercise depends on the whole problematic notion of RAW.

There's a kind of hidden victory condition where you win by forcing the DM to house rule (even if it's only a theoretical DM making theoretical house rules.)

If you don't accept the notion of RAW then purely theoretical builds are a complete nonsense.

I have no idea how you're not playing with the rules-as-written.

Quote from: B.T.;513559A circlet of persuasion grants a +3 bonus (and only costs 4,500 gp) for +14.  If you have 18 Charisma, that's another +4, for +18 in all.  Add in 3 + your level skill ranks, and you have a +26 by level five.  Turn Frodo into a half-elf for +28 total.

But Frodo's not a half-elf, he's a halfling. And now you're including magic, and although 5th level is not 14th level, we're still talking about someone who is nearly at the very peak of normal human ability, skill, and training (i.e. about level 6 or 7), and he still can't muster up the +30 needed for the 5% faint hope try.

QuoteAnd this is without getting into multiclass shenanigans--the "ultimate" diplomancer has levels in marshal, binder, warlock, and possibly dragonfire adept, human paragon, and half-elf paragon.

Talk about your spherical cows!

QuoteThe diplomancer is a thought experiment and shouldn't be taken seriously, but it does highlight how retarded the 3e Diplomacy rules are.

I don't see how. Creating a ridiculous tricked out example that wouldn't actually exist at a table unless you're playing totally gonzo anyway is hardly evidence that the system is broken. All this shows me is how abuse and cheap tricks look like abuse and cheap tricks.

Quote from: B.T.;513566Yes, Benoist's position is retarded and is based on the Oberoni fallacy (rules aren't broken because you can change them).  He relies on the DM changing the rules to fuck the wizard or using DM fiat to arbitrarily fuck the wizard to balance the game.  There is a middle ground between the Asperger's-riddled Frank position and the asshole Benoist position.

Yeah but there's a question of whether broken rules are trivial or not to fix.  A broken rule that sits in the heart of the system is a problem.  A broken rule that produces a single kind of absurd result will just be changed at the table by most groups.

If every weapon in the game does 1d6 or 2d6 and there's one weapon in the weapons table that says 11D6, it doesn't really matter that the weapon is broken.  Everyone is going to know it's a typo.

Quote from: two_fishes;513571But Frodo's not a half-elf, he's a halfling. And now you're including magic, and although 5th level is not 14th level, we're still talking about someone who is nearly at the very peak of normal human ability, skill, and training (i.e. about level 6 or 7), and he still can't muster up the +30 needed for the 5% faint hope try.

You're taking the idea of "Frodo vs. Sauron" too literally.

QuoteTalk about your spherical cows!

I agree, but I'm showing you how your math was wrong.

QuoteI don't see how. Creating a ridiculous tricked out example that wouldn't actually exist at a table unless you're playing totally gonzo anyway is hardly evidence that the system is broken. All this shows me is how abuse and cheap tricks look like abuse and cheap tricks.

The diplomancer is quite doable even without going totally gonzo, but I've never seen it in play because it is--as I said--a thought experiment.  The 3e system is broken for a number of reasons, the Diplomacy rules being the least of these.  The fact that your skill bonuses can actually get that high is what is truly ridiculous.

Quote from: B.T.;513574I agree, but I'm showing you how your math was wrong.

All I've seen is that gonzo characters get gonzo results. Garbage in garbage out. You say you can get these results without going gonzo but I haven't seen it.

Quote from: Dog Quixote;513572Yeah but there's a question of whether broken rules are trivial or not to fix.  A broken rule that sits in the heart of the system is a problem.  A broken rule that produces a single kind of absurd result will just be changed at the table by most groups.

If every weapon in the game does 1d6 or 2d6 and there's one weapon in the weapons table that says 11D6, it doesn't really matter that the weapon is broken.  Everyone is going to know it's a typo.

There's not just the trivial to fix problem, there's also the trivial to notice problem (a weapon that does 11D6 for example is trivial to notice).

Combos are not trivial to notice in character generation. Because even if you have read all the rules, you probably haven't seen or thought about every combination of two or three or four items. Okay, you can say no to the find city nuke when it looks like it will happen in play. But what about twf and sneak attack? If you're like me you aren't keeping a tally of damage output in play. You really shouldn't have to.

There are some things that turn to dumb when the rubber hits the road. Your monk with toughness will not be tough or a good melee fighter. Your twfing rogue will fight better than the fighter. And so on. These things aren't exactly context sensitive. A fighter who can't beat the crap out of someone as quickly as a rogue can is just not good design.

Problems like diplomancy kind of need to be noticed before they can become problems (you need a pretty specific build to get something like that at the low levels, and as you ease into it the DM will catch on that something's off with the math... as long as you actually use the skill). But that the DCs aren't based on RP (while general consensus is that they should be) isn't a trivial to notice problem with new DMs. Likewise, the context that justifies vancian magic is not trivial to notice for a novice DM.

Quote from: two_fishes;513576All I've seen is that gonzo characters get gonzo results. Garbage in garbage out. You say you can get these results without going gonzo but I haven't seen it.

Diplomancy ain't gonna happen by accident, you're right.

But the fifteen minute adventuring day, the monk with toughness, and the TWFing rogue might.

Blimey. All this over a talking head.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;513435The Diplomacy check rant though is an example of broken thinking, not a broken rule.  (...) That doesn't mean the rule is broken, it means the DM is broken.

The problem with Diplomacy in 3E is that, once the DM eliminates the problematic aspects of the rule, there's no rule left. It provides no useful guidance or resolution whatsoever.

In order to make the rule useful you have to go back to basics and completely re-conceptualize what a Diplomacy check is resolving and how it resolves it.

I haven't played Avalon Hill's Speed Circuit, but I'm guessing that there actually is a meaningful context in which the rear-end collision rule is useful; the fact that there's this oddball case of people trying to abuse the rule by driving backwards all the time doesn't negate the useful qualities of the rear-end collision rule. You can simply ignore (or overrule) the "drive backwards all the time" thing and still get useful mileage out of the rule.

The 3E Diplomacy rules aren't like that. Once you ignore (or overrule) the problematic aspects of the 3E Diplomacy rules, there's no rule left.

(With that being said: I have no idea what Trollman's take on Diplomacy is. It could be batshit.)

Quote from: CRKrueger;513455While I think JA does some great work, I also think he can be a bit too quick to deflect rules criticisms against his chosen system (3.5) by tossing out a "Spherical Cow Dismissal(TM)".  Add to that the old school oversimplification of "no rule is ever broken because you can always change it"

Let's not lump me in with that, please. I coined the phrase "Rule 0 Fallacy" and have almost no patience for it.

With that being said, I think the point Benoist is trying to make is that the rules are only one part of the game. Of equal importance is (a) the scenario and (b) the rulings made by the GM (because RPGs are inherently open-ended game structures).

This division of the totality of the "roleplaying game" may help us understand a few misconceptions:

First, you have the Rule 0 Fallacy. This is where we look at the third part of this equation and elevate it above everything else. We say, "The rules and the scenario don't matter, because the GM can always fix it!"

Second, you've got your Spherical Cows. This is where we look at the first part of this equation and elevate it above everything else. We say, "If the wizard always has the perfect spell prepared, then blah blah blah." But if these are not scenarios which are likely to ever appear at the gaming table, is this really a shortcoming in the rules or the game? And if there's one, narrow way of designing scenarios which causes problems with the rules, does that mean we should abandon the rules or that we should avoid that narrow style of scenario design?

There's probably also a way of elevating the scenario above all else -- railroading by means of fudging maybe? -- but whatever.

My point is that trying to analyze an RPG based solely on its rules is like trying to analyze Monopoly's rules without taking into consideration the game board, the cards, or the property values.

Quote from: Rincewind1;513475RPGs on the other hand, are a cooperative game (at least 99.9% of them), so the lack of balance does not hurt them that much, as long as the players are a team that works together.

Within certain limits, yes.

The discussion is also complicated by the fact that there are many types of balance.

Quote from: Settembrini;513355Kudos to Frank for having the balls for being the first one to call Bullshit on the editionless edition via options talk.

I still am too hopeful that they somehow, magically, can make it work. But my intellect tells me, unless 4e's legacy is utterly negated and neglected, the 5e mission is impossible.

A good point. I can see very clearly how you could design a modular system which would let you play more-or-less in the style of every pre-4E version of the rules. Because, frankly, that's the history of pre-4E D&D: With a couple of exceptions (like BECMI race-as-class) it's all OD&D with different sets of "extra bits" bolted onto it. And even the exceptions are generally just swap-able (you could swap in a "race-as-class" character creation module to replace the "race-and-class" character creation module).

Once you toss 4E into the pot, however, I'm not seeing it.

Quote from: ggroy;513555In such a crowd, I never heard them once using the term "spherical cows".  But the term "toy model" was used quite often.

How relevant do you really think that is, however?

Quote from: Justin Alexander;513586

Quote from: ggroy;513555In such a crowd, I never heard them once using the term "spherical cows".  But the term "toy model" was used quite often.

How relevant do you really think that is, however?

Relevant in what sense?

Quote from: Justin Alexander;513586With that being said, I think the point Benoist is trying to make is that the rules are only one part of the game. Of equal importance is (a) the scenario and (b) the rulings made by the GM (because RPGs are inherently open-ended game structures).

And (c) the personalities of the players involved and how they play the game/how they use the rules that are under their characters' purviews themselves, yes. That's basically what I'm trying to say. Thank you.

I'm not talking about the Rule 0 Fallacy, which basically places (b) above everything else as you noted. What I'm saying is that all these elements are tied and that basically the rules are joined to the hip with those others aspects of the game.

If we take ability score checks in place of skills, for instance. This system isn't "broken". It's going to be used in a certain way by players and DM searching for a specific way to entertain themselves through the game, and in some other way by another table having a different way to reach the same goal. Some tables will find the rule perfectly adequate, others will find the rule far from satisfactory. Ability score checks in place of "skills" are not "broken". They are not adapted to some particular tables' needs, maybe, but they work under certain conditions. Same thing with wizards versus fighter. Same thing with XP for GPs. Same thing for ACs and Hit Points. Etc.

Quote from: two_fishes;513571But Frodo's not a half-elf, he's a halfling. And now you're including magic, and although 5th level is not 14th level, we're still talking about someone who is nearly at the very peak of normal human ability, skill, and training (i.e. about level 6 or 7), and he still can't muster up the +30 needed for the 5% faint hope try.
.

All of that just lets him do it faster.

A cha 10 (at level 1) boring as fuck dude with Diplomacy as a skill focus can hit +30 easy. It takes a lot of levels and, yes, putting his bonus attribute points into only charisma... and if the GM is really cruel and denies him any cloaks of charisma, like, ever... he can still do this trick to any and every bad guy he meets to include Sauron (or equivilent) by level... hm... 20 for sure. Starting from boring as paste and with no magic at all.

Sure, 20 is a lot (the ult in some cases), but its still pretty ridiculous. And since no GM I know is going to deny somethign like charisma boosting magic items in a normal game, we can pare that down to level 15. Still started boring as paste. Now, if we give him at least a 16 charisma (which, using standard distribution for PCs and the fuckign IDEA that he's gonna fast talk the lord of darkness into being his gimp suit bitch..) We can pare it down to 12 easy enough.

The ONLY requirement here is that he comes from a class with Diplomacy as a class skill.

So, while a 12th level character may seem sorta high... he's telling Thor that 'hey, that's a sweet hammer. IF you liked me you'd totally give it to me'... and succeeding.

Now, since we know players will try to get an 18 to start with, and some asshole who really wants to do this WILL play a race like half elf... he's doing it at what? Ten now? 9th level?

At ninth level this guy doesn't use armies, but he rules the world. He walks up to kings and tells them 'Hey man, Wouldn't you rather be a gardner? Maybe a pimp?" and they give him the crown. A dread necromancer raises and army of the dead, he walks out and convinces them they'd rather live in a hut with kittehs!  Evil soul destroying God incarnates? Get in teh gimp suit, bitch!

At level... 9* was it? That's doing it the most straight forward and dead simple way. One magic item that is entirely passive in its effects.

Nobody was reasonably saying DC 50 was getting hit by 1st level commoners, mang. Only that it was relatively easily achievable, and horrifically broken in the wrong hands... either conceptually or mechanistically.



*Please don't split hairs regarding the exact accuracy of this number. I know, as the levels peel back, so do the bonus stat points and the believable bonuses from magic items. Further, that was for the 5% chance. Even so, we are looking at a midrange character with a chance to convince the devil himself to be his footsoldier rather than his enemy.  Not just 'don't attack, its not nice', as I recall that dc 50 is to move from hostile to loyal buddy territory.  But then again, I throw bricks at my players, so what do I know about hacks of the game?  Hey, good news is I'm down to three lawsuits this year. Progress...