Quote from: xech;513552I think that the problem with some people around here is that a skill like diplomacy is no way applicable with some dude like Sauron. His ego is the whole point of Sauron's existence so it is kind of moot to try to "diplomance" something like Sauron. After all, could one use their diplomacy skill against a skeleton or a zombie?

Exactly. If Frodo tried this in a game I was running it simply would not work.

Sauron is NOT going to listen to the hobbit who "stole" his ring of power and become best buds. Sauron's anger at the hobbit's theft of his ring will give the Frodo's diplomacy a huge negative modifier, say -100, maybe more if Sauron suspected he was trying to get to Mount Doom to destroy it. Rules to support this? Rule Zero and common sense knowledge of the Middle Earth setting.  Yes, this would upset all the people who hate Rule Zero and all the people who think the rules mechanics should trump the setting, but they are playing in my game and I use Rule Zero and the setting trumps the rules every time.

Quote from: Benoist;513457See my post above yours.

The phrase actually means there is more to the game than its rules, and than the rules do not encompass the entirety of the game experience. Rules have a purpose to participate to the game experience, and serve as a tool to enhance it in a number of different ways, following different design patterns or logic, but they are not a substitute to this game experience themselves. They should not be conceptualized, thought of, or criticized on such a basis. It is completely missing the boat on their actual purpose at a game table.

"The game" isn't what you buy when you buy an RPG book, though; what you buy is the rules.

If the rules aren't functional, then the product that you have bought isn't functional. I shouldn't have to edit the game myself to make the basic concepts playable; that's the games developer's job, and that's what I paid for when I bought the book.

Quote from: Ladybird;513593"The game" isn't what you buy when you buy an RPG book, though; what you buy is the rules.

If the rules aren't functional, then the product that you have bought isn't functional. I shouldn't have to edit the game myself to make the basic concepts playable; that's the games developer's job, and that's what I paid for when I bought the book.

Unless you've got a gazillion page book, though, in my experience no system covers everything - therefore, houserules.

Quote from: Ladybird;513593If the rules aren't functional, then the product that you have bought isn't functional.

The rules have no positive existence beyond the confines of your game table.
They do not exist until you actually play them.

Quote from: One Horse Town;513594Unless you've got a gazillion page book, though, in my experience no system covers everything - therefore, houserules.

This, too.

Quote from: xech;513545EDIT: Do you understand what "exception-based design" or any of that jargon means or is it that you just do not care about this sort of discussion?

Exception based design is a simple way of designing a game that doesn't make sense. Since the RAW trumps making any sense in these sorts of games any problems with such rules are imagined and should be ignored.

Quote from: Benoist;513595The rules have no positive existence beyond the confines of your game table.
They do not exist until you actually play them.

Now Ben, here is where you're not exactly doing a Rule 0 fallacy, but it's easy for people to think you are.  What you are saying amounts to 2+2 doesn't equal 4 until you actually begin to count something physical, so the fact that someone sold you rules that say 2+2=5 is of no consequence.  That might not be the letter of the Rule 0 Fallacy, but it sure is in the spirit of it.

Back to what I said a while ago, if I buy a game with the detail of Harnmaster, that comes with some built in assumptions, namely that a dagger doesn't weigh more then a two-handed sword, a weak human can't outlift a strong human, and that chainmail, while great against slashing, suffers against piercing and blunt damage.

If, as I begin to play Harnmaster, I find out that a dagger does weigh more then a two-handed sword, a weakling can outlift a strongman and that chainmail is lousy protection against slashing and the best vs. piercing, then I am pretty pissed as a customer.  Harnmaster's rules have a goal and focus that they are failing to achieve.  Yeah, I can fix that, but claiming the fact that I can fix it doesn't make the rules bad is the very definition of the Rule 0 Fallacy.  

Claiming that the rules for Harnmaster chainmail don't exist until a character at my table actually wears a set isn't a gaming argument, it's a philosophical argument about the reality of the written word.

Now, I will admit, I have never, EVER, ran a RPG 100% RAW.  As I read the rules, I change whatever I feel like, however I feel like, either before or after dry runs and testing.  However saying that in essence RAW can never be wrong because no one plays RAW is basically Rule 0/Oberoni restated.

I'm honestly surprised at people completely misunderstanding this for the Rules 0 Fallacy. It isn't. Never was.

It means that a rule may not be functional with certain personality types, certain circumstances, certain players and DMs with certain ways to play the game, and that the rule may be exactly what some other players, DMs, etc. are actually searching for.

If the rule isn't working for a majority of gamers out there, such as the Diplomacy rules there (I haven't checked my 3rd ed books or the debates on the question for ages - I'll just say this, though: the way 3rd ed skills were defined by edges, to take Clash's phrasing, with a list of stuff you can do with them and no more, has always been bothering to me. I like Skills to be defined by center, with the edges being left to interpretation and adjudication on the part of the participants of the game), then it means it's inappropriate, badly thought out, sure.

You'll notice when I'm making a review of something I'll generally say stuff like "if you like this and this in a role playing game, this probably isn't going to work. If you like that and that, then maybe you could use it," because really that's how elements in the books are meant. The game itself, the actual experience of play, actual play, is a mix of different elements, the players, the DM, their personalities, individual skills and social dynamics, the components of the world and scenario being played, the player characters, etc. with the rules helping for some tasks resolutions and setting things up in terms of baseline of the world setting. "This works like this, not like that. An 8th level character is generally more experienced than a 4th level, takes more abuse, is more seasoned, etc. This character can cast fireball. This one can beat the crap out of people with his stick." Those kinds of things. It's just a tiny part of the whole. It isn't the whole itself.

The extension of all this is that rules should be thought of as means, tools which address certain particular needs for certain particular playing styles, individually taken at a game table, or between separate game tables. Either you create a game focused on a certain style, or several styles, or you try to create a game with several layers that satisfy different people and their inclinations in different ways (as the example I gave earlier). To design a rule, you think first of who's going to use it, and how they might use it, abuse it, break it etc from there.

The problem with the rules in a vacuum bullshit is that it generally takes extreme cases, spherical cows and otherwise, and completely divorce the discussion of the worth of the rules from their utility to different types of people and actual play scenarios that come from them. The ultimate offenders and best examples of this is when one claims a rule is "broken", or a system is "not functional", simply because you find something problematic with it. It's over the top all-or-nothing rhetoric that is basically useless, to me.

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.

What part of "character with skill points in Sense Motive, Knowledge (nobility), and Bluff and two feats" is gonzo, exactly?

Here was your post?

Quote from: two_fishes;513549As a thought experiment, DC 50 means our Frodo von Bismarck needs a +30 to the roll for a %5 chance of success. Let's say he wants to be able to have at least a %50 chance of success, since a failure probably means Sauron smites him out of hand, so he needs a +40. Now it's been a long time since I've played 3e, so my numbers might be off. But I believe you can have +4 at first level, plus Skill Training (+3, right?), plus ability score bonus. Let's be generous and call that a +4, and he might be able to manage some kind of synergy bonus for another +2, and let's pretend he managed some kind of +2 circumstantial bonus. So Frodo von Bismarck is sitting at a +15 right out the gate. That's a hefty bonus to the roll, but he's still only half way to a faint hope. If he pumps his Diplomacy every level, and his Charisma at 4th and 8th he won't even be at the  +30 mark until level 15, well beyond any normal human level of ability. At that point he should be able to pull of crazy-ass shit, like talking Sauron into giving it all up for a place in the sun. Do I have that math right?

And then I said, "No, you don't have your math right because you can get way higher results."  Then I proved how you were wrong.

16 Charisma: +3.
Skill ranks: Level + 3.
Skill synergies: +6.
Circlet of Persuasion: +3.
Feats: +5.

This is all core stuff, no gonzo involved, and it's not even high level.  It requires a single magic item that costs 4,500gp.  I'm even toning the Charisma score down.  If you want to go gonzo, you can pump it up way higher.  But in the core rules, you can get much higher Diplomacy checks than what you suggested--you're rolling 1d20 + 20 + your level.  At which point, you can take a -10 penalty to make a Diplomacy check as a full-round action and turn Sauron from hostile to indifferent (DC 25) fairly easily.

Quote from: One Horse Town;513594Unless you've got a gazillion page book, though, in my experience no system covers everything - therefore, houserules.

And unless you have a gazillion pages of house rules they will not cover everything either. Therefore (at least IMHO) GM rulings make more sense than very detailed rules. The rules should cover the most common things (and the most dangerous to the characters things like combat) and leave the rest to the GM wh can decide based on his knowledge of what the players in his group expect, the specifics of the setting and the situation.

Quote from: RandallS;513613And unless you have a gazillion pages of house rules they will not cover everything either. Therefore (at least IMHO) GM rulings make more sense than very detailed rules.

At least where i'm concerned, GM rulings become house rules.

Quote from: One Horse Town;513594Unless you've got a gazillion page book, though, in my experience no system covers everything - therefore, houserules.

That covers the absence of a rule. Not a bad rule.

Rules that exist should still be held to certain standards.

To me, this Diplomacy example is ignoring two important factors (as with all "broken" exception examples):

1) How does Frodo get into a position to have a conversation with Sauron long enough to convert him?

2) Did the player actually play the character from the first level?

The second point would be the only way to go with Rules As Written.

Quote from: beejazz;513615That covers the absence of a rule. Not a bad rule.

Rules that exist should still be held to certain standards.

Much like beauty, bad rules are in the eye of the beholder.

Quote from: One Horse Town;513619Much like beauty, bad rules are in the eye of the beholder.

Much like technology rules have purposes they are made to serve. I may never need a breast pump for myself, but I could still tell you that one that doesn't suck is useless.

There's taste, and then there's rules that serve no purpose well.