Quote from: Sacrosanct;650764*Edit* But more to the point, my post was to illustrate how something like those scenarios in a game does not devolve into paralysis by analysis.  They were all easily and quickly resolved.  Even in your version, they were.

To try to wring a bit of substantive discussion out of this thread, I don't think you're addressing the analysis paralysis claim.

The alleged problem is that there are those seven options, but until the player knows what rulings the GM is going to make about how to resolve them, the player can't effectively choose between them.

So the supposed process of deciding what the player is going to do, instead of being considering the 7 options and choosing one, becomes

Player considers 7 options
Player asks GM about #1
GM quickly tells the player how they'd handle it
Player asks GM about #2
...
GM quickly tells the player how they'd handle #7
Player makes a decision

... which is a lot slower.
Now, if the player went through this with you a dozen times, they'd probably figure out some of your patterns, and only need to ask about 2 or 3.

And the counterargument to that is "only if the player is confident they understand your pattern, and confident you aren't going to change". Which I'm not too worried by, but the concern trolls are.

Quote from: Naburimannu;650945To try to wring a bit of substantive discussion out of this thread, I don't think you're addressing the analysis paralysis claim.

The alleged problem is that there are those seven options, but until the player knows what rulings the GM is going to make about how to resolve them, the player can't effectively choose between them.

So the supposed process of deciding what the player is going to do, instead of being considering the 7 options and choosing one, becomes

Player considers 7 options
Player asks GM about #1
GM quickly tells the player how they'd handle it
Player asks GM about #2
...
GM quickly tells the player how they'd handle #7
Player makes a decision

... which is a lot slower.
Now, if the player went through this with you a dozen times, they'd probably figure out some of your patterns, and only need to ask about 2 or 3.

And the counterargument to that is "only if the player is confident they understand your pattern, and confident you aren't going to change". Which I'm not too worried by, but the concern trolls are.

As a player I don't think about patterns, math, what the gm thinks, etc...

My characters do what the character would do.

I really don't relate to the paralysis at all.

Quote from: gleichman;650798Not as much as one might think, but then this site loves it some moral relativism. Just check out the Law and Chaos thread.



The risk is changed from the original design, and in undefined ways.

Thus you're not playing the original game at all, and further you don't really know what has and has not changed as you don't have a RAW baseline to compare to. Thus you can't claim to have fixed anything.

As far as being enjoyable, I imagine that with a GM and group as undemanding of standards as yours seems to be- *anything* would likely be seen as enjoyable. That IMO is part of the natural result of your style. It breeds that mindset.

My issues with Alignment are mainly based on how few people agree on the definitions.

Raw baseline? That is the rulebook being used. So any changes I make are compared to that.

Fixed to me is repairing a broken ruleset. All rpg rulesets I have seen are broken.

As for standards and style, people obviously enjoy different things.

But to suggest I would enjoy anything? I assure you there are plenty of things in rpg's I do not enjoy.

Like Murder Hoboism.

Quote from: estar;650907And I observe that you didn't still didn't post  a link or text where somebody involved in the OSR has said "everything else is garbage".

Is posting links now required for rational discussion?

Quote from: estar;650907I speculate that you hold your opinion about the OSR, despite the lack of factual evidence, due to your strong belief in how a tabletop roleplaying game ought to be designed and played based on quotes you made on this board. Also explains your attitude in this thread and similar ones like it.

Links or it didn't happen.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;650955Is posting links now required for rational discussion?



Links or it didn't happen.

There are two quotes just below.

Quote from: Naburimannu;650945To try to wring a bit of substantive discussion out of this thread, I don't think you're addressing the analysis paralysis claim.

The alleged problem is that there are those seven options, but until the player knows what rulings the GM is going to make about how to resolve them, the player can't effectively choose between them.

So the supposed process of deciding what the player is going to do, instead of being considering the 7 options and choosing one, becomes

Player considers 7 options
Player asks GM about #1
GM quickly tells the player how they'd handle it
Player asks GM about #2
...
GM quickly tells the player how they'd handle #7
Player makes a decision

... which is a lot slower.
Now, if the player went through this with you a dozen times, they'd probably figure out some of your patterns, and only need to ask about 2 or 3.

And the counterargument to that is "only if the player is confident they understand your pattern, and confident you aren't going to change". Which I'm not too worried by, but the concern trolls are.

Player: "What if I did X, how would you handle that?" ad infinitum
GM: "Lost your round.  Next!"

Quote from: deadDMwalking;650955Is posting links now required for rational discussion?

Gliechman made a blanket statement about the OSR. I challenged him to back it up.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;650955Links or it didn't happen.

The links are in the quotes (click on the little arched arrow) but here is the direct link to the post I quoted from.

http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=604990#post604990

Quote from: Bill;650951As a player I don't think about patterns, math, what the gm thinks, etc...

My characters do what the character would do.

I really don't relate to the paralysis at all.

Yeah, pretty much.  Maybe I've been playing with unusual players, but everything in the original example are things that players have been saying for decades.  It's never gone down like the quote you just responded to.  Instead, it usually goes down like:

Players say, "I'm gonna try this."
DM's say, "OK, resolve it this way."
Players say, "OK" and resolve it.

I've never had players go over option after option delaying the game.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;650969Yeah, pretty much.  Maybe I've been playing with unusual players, but everything in the original example are things that players have been saying for decades.  It's never gone down like the quote you just responded to.  Instead, it usually goes down like:

Players say, "I'm gonna try this."
DM's say, "OK, resolve it this way."
Players say, "OK" and resolve it.

I've never had players go over option after option delaying the game.

This is one problem that comes with discussing how RPGs function in theoretical terms.

Quote from: Benoist;650064I can tell you what happens at my AD&D game table: I am very much the referee of the game, and the rules and their application are indeed my province. There is no copy of the Dungeon Master's Guide on the players' side of the screen. Somebody bringing such a book to the table would be asked to let it rest in the backpack. I decide what people roll and when. Players don't have attack matrixes in front of them, because figuring the monster's AC is *NOT* the point of the game. I don't reveal circumstantial modifiers on attack rolls and the like, I might substitute six-siders in the rules for twelve or hundred-sided dice while keeping the same relative odds, and back and forth.

What the players know about the game is what they discover through the act of play. A MU player knows how his spells work, a fighter knows the function of weapons and armor, and there is a copy of the PH on the table for them to look up stuff if need be, but that's no guarantee that things will turn out the way the rules say "because rules."

Either you trust me to do a fair, consistent job as a DM, and know what it is I am doing without switching the tables around or engaging in illusionism or whatever else, or you don't. If you don't, there's really no point in playing together, and I'm cool with that.

This. I haven't replied in this thread up till now, even though I have strong and, sometimes, conflicting views on the topic, because I was having difficulty clarifying my thoughts, but this pretty much sums up my attitute to Rule Zero and related questions of rules interpretation.

Quote from: Bill;650951As a player I don't think about patterns, math, what the gm thinks, etc...

My characters do what the character would do.

I really don't relate to the paralysis at all.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;650969Yeah, pretty much.  Maybe I've been playing with unusual players, but everything in the original example are things that players have been saying for decades.  It's never gone down like the quote you just responded to.  Instead, it usually goes down like:

Players say, "I'm gonna try this."
DM's say, "OK, resolve it this way."
Players say, "OK" and resolve it.

I've never had players go over option after option delaying the game.

Quote from: KenHR;650970This is one problem that comes with discussing how RPGs function in theoretical terms.

Yeah, me neither. I've never had a player engage in pixelbitching to the extent deadDMwalking described it.

When a player is taking forever to take a decision, the players around him or her start to get annoyed and joke about "make up your mind for God's sakes" and the like. That's the social element of RPGs that's always forgotten in those kinds of theoretical discussions. If you pixel-bitch with the DM, there are other players who are waiting and you are basically acting like a dick to them. Don't be a dick. That's a first thing.

The second thing is that there are moments to ask plenty of questions (when you're inspecting a room in the dungeon, for instance, which of course triggers the risk to be interrupted by wandering monsters and happenings in the dungeon), and others when that's much less appropriate, from a role playing standpoint. If you are role playing a fight breaking out in a tavern with everything moving fast and you go with your first instinct to do something about it on the spot, then pixelbitching like your character is carefully weighing his options is a failure of role playing. What happens is that your character stands there using reason instead of guts and instincts to do something. You pass your turn.

In reflection, the only time my characters stand there struggling to make a decsision is usually when:

My Paladin is confronted with another Paladin who may or may not be slipping into evil in the name of the greater good.

And I have to choose between stopping the other paladin or helping him.

Stuff like that can paralyze me for a few minutes.


But choosing charge, attack, use an ability, cast a spell, etc are just results of what the character chooses to do.

Quote from: Bill;650983In reflection, the only time my characters stand there struggling to make a decsision is usually when:

My Paladin is confronted with another Paladin who may or may not be slipping into evil in the name of the greater good.

And I have to choose between stopping the other paladin or helping him.

Stuff like that can paralyze me for a few minutes.


But choosing charge, attack, use an ability, cast a spell, etc are just results of what the character chooses to do.

Sure, me too. There's a huge difference between being in character and freezing in role play over something cool (and/or horrible) happening in the game, and pixelbitch about what modifier you get how and where if you do this or that with the GM.

Quote from: Benoist;650985Sure, me too. There's a huge difference between being in character and freezing in role play over something cool (and/or horrible) happening in the game, and pixelbitch about what modifier you get how and where if you do this or that with the GM.

I am with you on this.

If a player has a simple question about how a rule works, I am always happy to explain it then and there. If the game slows down due to a rules argument, I ask the player to table it so we can talk about it after the game or before the next session.

On the one hand, I generally agree that systemless play and/or play without knowing the rules is quite possible and can be fun.  It's a fairly empirical thing - I've played a wide variety of new systems including ones where I didn't know the options and was being walked through them.  

Thus, I disagree with the extremes of Gleichman and Anon.  

However, that said, some stuff from the non-rules side strikes me as a bit off.  While it *can be* fun, I have seen and experienced some problems with no-rules-knowledge play.  I'm suspicious particularly of people who are arguing for no rules knowledge for players, when they themselves generally know the rules.  

Quote from: Bill;650983In reflection, the only time my characters stand there struggling to make a decsision is usually when:

My Paladin is confronted with another Paladin who may or may not be slipping into evil in the name of the greater good.

And I have to choose between stopping the other paladin or helping him.

Stuff like that can paralyze me for a few minutes.

But choosing charge, attack, use an ability, cast a spell, etc are just results of what the character chooses to do.

I believe your experience - but how many of those in-character choices of charge, attack, etc. are in cases where you have no knowledge of the rules being used?  

Sure, in a D&D game, you can easily choose between casting Sanctuary, casting Cure Light Wounds, and using your mace.  However, you know what those options do.  If you were completely new to the game, you could choose between those options arbitrarily, but I think there's a case that it isn't really in character - since the character does know how the Sanctuary spell works (for example).