Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;671151A Kansas-based RPG publisher just announced that their house system powering all eventual releases would be called "Magical Tea Party".
(All the cool names for game systems were already taken; "d20 System", "d6 System", "Basic Role Play". "Storyteller", "Silhouette", "ICON", "Fuzion", etc.).
Apparently it is an ultra simulatoric d% system.

Their first game using MTP will be Wonderland.

You know, I'd probably buy a Wondaland game, set in the hip-hop android metropolis of Janelle Monáe's songs.

Anyway, MTP. Yeah. The more rules you have to make up to play your game, relative to the ones you bought, the less use the rules you bought actually were. When it gets to certain point, you have to ask yourself, "did I really need to buy that rulebook? Could we have had more fun with a different game? Were we really playing the game that we bought?".

And that's totally cool, there's nothing wrong with playing or not playing pretty much any RPG. But the rules you buy should give you the guidance you need at the table, or they're not doing their job and you should move to something else.

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;671151A Kansas-based RPG publisher just announced that their house system powering all eventual releases would be called "Magical Tea Party".
(All the cool names for game systems were already taken; "d20 System", "d6 System", "Basic Role Play". "Storyteller", "Silhouette", "ICON", "Fuzion", etc.).
Apparently it is an ultra simulatoric d% system.

Their first game using MTP will be Wonderland.

I've always wanted to write a game "Bad Wrong Fun" (or "Badwrongfun"), a mish-mash of both sides of the most hotly contested RPG rules.

I like the name. But, unsurprisingly, it just wasn't that fun to write.

//Panjumanju

Quote from: deadDMwalking;671159People can take insult for whatever reason they want.  Yes, when most people on the Gaming Den talk about Magical Tea Party, it's not high praise.  While it has a place, it is almost universally seen as a failure in the system.  

Lord Mistborn pulled a quote from Frank that may express the Den's View of it best:

The fact that MTP is used in a dismissive, if not insulting manner is evidence of a fundamental problem with this assessment.

If it is such a thing that any 5 year old can do, and shouldn't require any space in a game book then why are there so many DMs who suck so bad at it, that it has become a euphemesim for sucking the DMs cock? After all, anyone can sing, but there are those who are more pleasant to listen to than others.

While anyone may be able to MTP, not everyone can make rulings fairly and consistently. Making rulings is a skill that is developed like any other. It is part of a good DMs skillset. If there are no situations in a game that rules do not fully cover then a human DM isn't needed in the first place. The whole point of tabletop rpgs is the ability to go beyond the pre-programmed code a computer game provides.

Developing such skills takes time and involves some trial and error. A group that communicates openly and doesn't treat the game like such serious business is important to the development of such skills.

That is kind of what has been missing IMHO in the latest generation of gamers and the reason that MTP play has sucked, and thus been mistakenly identified as the cause of bad games rather than the result of the inability of DMs to develop proper skills.

Quote from: spaceLem;671001I don't get where all this level appropriate challenge nonsense comes from -- nowhere in any of the books does it say "thou shalt only deliver level appropriate challenges to thy players". I think it's intended just as a guideline to judge how difficult the encounter is.

Or is the GM putting ancient red dragons in the cave behind the sign marked "Wotchout, anchient redde dragone liveth yonder" just MTP?

You are right in my opinion, but many people interpret, innocently or otherwise, the existance of 'challenge ratings' to be constraints on the gm.

I have observed players that seem to expect the gm to only use 'level appropriate' challenges. Their real reason is so their uber build will retain its advantage over a gm afraid to use stronger challenges. Its a way of accusing a gm of 'cheating'

After all, what good is an uber build if the enemies are also that powerful?

Quote from: deadDMwalking;671019MTP (Magical Tea Party) is a short-hand invented by The Gaming Den (http://www.tgdmb.com/) to describe a situation where there are no 'rules' to adjudicate the situation.  While it is generally disliked, it's not really a pejorative term - most people admit that there will be situations that the rules don't cover - but that those situations should tend to be based on uncommon situations.  Things like combat and exploration and social interaction are expected to be common in a game like Dungeons and Dragons, and therefore we'd expect rules for them.

Closely related to MTP is the term 'suck the DMs cock'.  That's the pejorative.  

The idea is that if you can get the DM to agree that your action is reasonable (because there are no rules) you can succeed by gaining favor.  If you want to 'win', you can suck the DMs cock and he'll agree that whatever you suggest is 'reasonable'.  

There have been some discussions here where people talk about 'tracking a dragon to his lair' despite not having any tracking skills, the dragon flying, etc.  The Den prefers real skills written on a character sheet so you don't have to convince the DM that 'you can totally track'.  

Some people here think that if the rules don't say you CAN'T, then you can try it.  Others prefer to have rules that say what you can do or how it works if you try something.

Tracking a dragon is an interesting example.

I was playing in a game recently where the characters had no tracking or wilderness skills at all. But they tracked the trail of an ogre pulling a wagon because it was an obvious trail.

I can see situations where one might track without the skill.


Fresh snow?

Quote from: deadDMwalking;671159People can take insult for whatever reason they want.  Yes, when most people on the Gaming Den talk about Magical Tea Party, it's not high praise.  While it has a place, it is almost universally seen as a failure in the system.  

Lord Mistborn pulled a quote from Frank that may express the Den's View of it best:

I was not taking issue with the positions of people at the gaming den. Magic Tea party is a term I have seen used all over the net. Just pointing out that if you equate a different style of play with a sexual act, people are not going to take your arguments or you all that seriously. And if you call a different style of play, Magic Tea Party, don't be surprised if they just view it as empty and dismissive rhetoric. It is no mystery why MTP is perceived as a bit of an insult. As I said, it is about as useful as saying someone has apergers because they like RAW. You are not really having a discussing at that point. I understand posters getting angry when a discussion has reached a bit of a peak, and letting loose some insults. But the trend of just immediately firing off these kinds of descriptors of people just because they game a bit differently (and this applies to people all over the map playstyle wise) is increasingly causing me to tune such folks out and only pay attention to those who do not feel the need to resort to that sort of rhetoric. Its only purpose is to dismiss and antagonize.

When you play a roleplaying game for the roleplaying, or IC immersion, the rules are there for simple task resolution.

When you play a roleplaying game for the game, the tactical challenge, then the rules become more important, because your ability to play within the rules and your enjoyment stems from success within that system.

When you play a roleplaying game for the story, the narrative control, then the rules also become more important, because the rules govern how the player gains that narrative control over the "fiction".

When your agenda is something other then immersion, or immersion is secondary, then restricting the GM to playing by the rules like everyone else becomes vital, because that rules system that focuses on something other then immersion is why you are playing that game as opposed to something else.

Now, unfortunately, both the tactical and narrative agendas, which by necessity restrict the GM's role, tend to accumulate players who care more about social dynamics and personal power relationships at the table, then actually gaming.  The tactical agenda in particular attracts the worst of the CharOp crowd, the munchkins, the rules-lawyers, those who bolster their self-esteem by winning through loophole finding.  As Brendan said, the use of grade school level submissive homosexual insults by that crowd says quite a bit.

As for Dead in this thread, well, it's just another case of a relative moderate defending the idiotic extreme because they wear the same jersey.  It happens and doesn't make him a bad guy.

Quote from: CRKrueger;671175".

 , it.

As for Dead in this thread, well, it's just another case of a relative moderate defending the idiotic extreme because they wear the same jersey.  It happens and doesn't make him a bad guy.

I agree. I think he is a fine poster. What I was reacting to wasn't dead's use of MTP but his claim that it was a neutral term. He seemed to be describing other people using it rather than invoking it himself as well.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;671159People can take insult for whatever reason they want.  Yes, when most people on the Gaming Den talk about Magical Tea Party, it's not high praise.  While it has a place, it is almost universally seen as a failure in the system.  

:

Not high praise?  Not high praise is things like, "It's OK." or "It's really not that appealing to me." or "It's meh."  It's a term used to describe something not good, but not that bad either.  Those aren't statements that accompany a quote where MTP has been used.  When MTP is used, it's almost exclusively in the context of vehemence or strong disdain for whatever game you're talking about.

Christ, if you can't even be honest with yourself, how can we expect you to be honest with us?

MTP complaints (along with a lot of related concerns about how important it is to constrain the GM) seems to be part of an extended hangover from the "GM as frustrated novelist" syndrome that some people experienced.

I certainly understand not liking frustrated novelist GMs, but the 90s were a long time ago. Is that really common any more?

Quote from: Dimitrios;671181MTP complaints (along with a lot of related concerns about how important it is to constrain the GM) seems to be part of an extended hangover from the "GM as frustrated novelist" syndrome that some people experienced.

I certainly understand not liking frustrated novelist GMs, but the 90s were a long time ago. Is that really common any more?

Heh, read the Shadowrun 5th lamentation Silva's got going.

Quote from: FrankTrollmanMTP 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.

-Frank

This guy doesn't understand what appeals to so many about role playing games.

He's too busy wanking over rules within rules and games as products where every single component must be spelled out and every screw tightened "just so" in his theoretical la la land to take notice.

Quote from: CRKrueger;671175When you play a roleplaying game for the roleplaying, or IC immersion, the rules are there for simple task resolution.

When you play a roleplaying game for the game, the tactical challenge, then the rules become more important, because your ability to play within the rules and your enjoyment stems from success within that system.

When you play a roleplaying game for the story, the narrative control, then the rules also become more important, because the rules govern how the player gains that narrative control over the "fiction".

When your agenda is something other then immersion, or immersion is secondary, then restricting the GM to playing by the rules like everyone else becomes vital, because that rules system that focuses on something other then immersion is why you are playing that game as opposed to something else.

Now, unfortunately, both the tactical and narrative agendas, which by necessity restrict the GM's role, tend to accumulate players who care more about social dynamics and personal power relationships at the table, then actually gaming.  The tactical agenda in particular attracts the worst of the CharOp crowd, the munchkins, the rules-lawyers, those who bolster their self-esteem by winning through loophole finding.  As Brendan said, the use of grade school level submissive homosexual insults by that crowd says quite a bit.

I was pretty much with you until this last paragraph. This is exactly the kind of stuff people are railing against in regard to MTP's negative connotations. The sooner people stop pathologising other styles of play, or judging it by its most extreme and crackpot practitioners, the better.

Quote from: CRKrueger;671175When you play a roleplaying game for the game, the tactical challenge, then the rules become more important, because your ability to play within the rules and your enjoyment stems from success within that system.

For some people, specifically the people who think the tactical challenge is solely contained within the parameters of the rules, or should be, maybe. But I for one do not share that POV.

I play D&D in part for the tactical challenge. I think the tactical challenge may be facilitated by the rules, their abstraction, the way they work, interact with each other and so on, sure, but I also think the challenge itself rests squarely within the world and the particular situations depicted by the game, the agency between the exploration setting and the adventuring party as they meet in the make-believe.

So I'm really not behind this notion that the rules are the game, and that the tactical challenge thereby would be all about how the game mechanics interact. If the situation can't be solved by applying actual common sense tactics to the make-believe, and instead relies on rules-lawyering your way out of problems, there's something wrong going on for me at the game table. My tactical interest in the game, specifically, will not be challenged.

Quote from: Benoist;671192For some people, specifically the people who think the tactical challenge is solely contained within the parameters of the rules, or should be, maybe. But I for one do not share that POV.

I play D&D in part for the tactical challenge. I think the tactical challenge may be facilitated by the rules, their abstraction, the way they work, interact with each other and so on, sure, but I also think the challenge itself rests squarely within the world and the particular situations depicted by the game, the agency between the exploration setting and the adventuring party as they meet in the make-believe.

So I'm really not behind this notion that the rules are the game, and that the tactical challenge thereby would be all about how the game mechanics interact. If the situation can't be solved by applying actual common sense tactics to the make-believe, and instead relies on rules-lawyering your way out of problems, there's something wrong going on for me at the game table. My tactical interest in the game, specifically, will not be challenged.

I think it's just two different, perfectly valid ways to do it. Either the rules themselves are the underpinning of the puzzle that needs to be solved, or the GM's vision is. Critics of the first call it rules lawyering, critics of the second call it pixel bitching or MTP. It's all just code for badwrongfun at the end of the day.