>>...Originally Posted by FrankTrollman

... "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 ....<<<


Aaaannd we're done as far as whether that phrase is "neutral" or vague praise.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;671169While 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.

Trial and error, yeah. But you can help that process along by including, in the core rulebook, copious examples of how to actually use the mechanics in play and how to extrapolate from them, to help less experienced GM's get to that point faster, and that book is then more useful for play.

And the quicker you get to that point, the less comparatively rubbish sessions a new group or new GM is going to have to get through. It's those early, shitty, sessions that kill newer groups and newer players.

Already-experienced GM's can whine and bitch all they want about the book stating the obvious or somehow trying to constrain GM's, but those parts of the book just aren't for them. They don't need them, they can skip them and just move on, no problem.

I think the whole issue of teaparty, gm's making calls, etc..is mainly an issue of the gm learning when its a good idea to bend the rules and when it is a bad idea.

As Exploderwizard said above, if the rules literally cover everything, you don't need a gm. You are playing chess.

Quote from: Doom;671201>>...Originally Posted by FrankTrollman

... "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 ....<<<


Aaaannd we're done as far as whether that phrase is "neutral" or vague praise.

More like Frank LoLman, amirite or amirite?

Quote from: Bill;671211I think the whole issue of teaparty, gm's making calls, etc..is mainly an issue of the gm learning when its a good idea to bend the rules and when it is a bad idea.

As Exploderwizard said above, if the rules literally cover everything, you don't need a gm. You are playing chess.

A kind of an interesting point, I'll admit.

Sadly, I seem to run more and more into the "MTP" people. As I recalled in other thread, my favourite one was the guy who was praising ToC over CoC based on ideas that "Playing CoC where you don't request rolls from people ALWAYS as they attempt something skill related is narrative play he grew out of (p. sure he'd use MTP if he knew it)". And you know, went on to play ToC...which is built wholesomely around the idea of narrative play.

Not to me. Rules lawyering during the game IS badwrongfun to me, because I'm not playing an RPG to pixelbitch about the rules and consider the rules as the be-all, end-all of the experience. Moreover, it's not about the DM making the calls. The DM has the last word as referee as a mean to an end. I'm playing and participating to the make-believe with my character as well, and the end is to share the make-believe and live it in our mind's eye.

When I think of MTP I think of Mother-May-I.

Do they mean the same thing or am I getting confused?

Quote from: Benoist;671220Not to me. Rules lawyering during the game IS badwrongfun to me, because I'm not playing an RPG to pixelbitch about the rules and consider the rules as the be-all, end-all of the experience. Moreover, it's not about the DM making the calls. The DM has the last word as referee as a mean to an end. I'm playing and participating to the make-believe with my character as well, and the end is to share the make-believe and live it in our mind's eye.

That fits me well. Immersion is the main reason I play rpgs.

Quote from: soviet;671222When I think of MTP I think of Mother-May-I.

Do they mean the same thing or am I getting confused?

Often used together, but they mean different things.  At least I think so.  MTP is more of "let's all tell a story without any rules at all!" while MMI is the players begging, bribing, or otherwise hoping their PCs can do something if the DM says it's OK.

Quote from: soviet;671222When I think of MTP I think of Mother-May-I.

Do they mean the same thing or am I getting confused?

I think its the same thing. Some people just don't like the gm to alter the raw rules at all.

Quote from: Benoist;671220Not to me. Rules lawyering during the game IS badwrongfun to me, because I'm not playing an RPG to pixelbitch about the rules and consider the rules as the be-all, end-all of the experience. Moreover, it's not about the DM making the calls. The DM has the last word as referee as a mean to an end. I'm playing and participating to the make-believe with my character as well, and the end is to share the make-believe and live it in our mind's eye.

I agree in general, BUT what about "logic lawyering"? I've been playing under a New Age GM a few games (that Warhammer campaign - hey, it was first campaign I played in rather than GMed in over 2 years, so it left a bad taste ), and there were a few fights where we were hitting in 4 people one guy...and there was no flanking bonus. So I asked the GM "Don't I get a flanking bonus? There's a four of us pouncing on this guy?" And he said "No, there is no flanking bonus rule in the mechanics".

....

And the best thing is, I think there is actually a flanking bonus in WFRP 2e manual, so I started arguing about it*.

*I'm sure there is one in WFRP 1e.

Quote from: Bill;671227I think its the same thing. Some people just don't like the gm to alter the raw rules at all.

The problem is, that this often leads to absurdity. I've been to a Dragon Age game where a GM didn't allow flanking bonuses, there were no attacks of opportunity (so my wizard just kept on running and shooting, keeping the distance away OR forcing the enemy to forsake their attack so they'd run towards me) but the thief rolled every turn a hide check, even when on a horse in the middle of a wheat field, to see if he gets a backstab.

It was a fun game in general, but there were grinding teeth pieces in it.

Quote from: Bill;671227I think its the same thing. Some people just don't like the gm to alter the raw rules at all.

Sometimes for very good reason. Sometimes not. Some GMs are sadistic assholes who only enjoy the game if they can prevent anyone else from enjoying it. Some players are whiney rule-lawyering bitches.

And some of both are grown ups.

Quote from: taustin;671233Sometimes for very good reason. Sometimes not. Some GMs are sadistic assholes who only enjoy the game if they can prevent anyone else from enjoying it. Some players are whiney rule-lawyering bitches.

And some of both are grown ups.

Human nature, gotta love it

In a perfect world no one would have to play with either, but sometimes those guys are your friends.

Quote from: taustin;671233Sometimes for very good reason. Sometimes not. Some GMs are sadistic assholes who only enjoy the game if they can prevent anyone else from enjoying it.
.

And in my day, the easy fix for this was to not play with them.  Simple as that.  No need to create these huge rules bloat as official canon to fix broken players.

That's the one thing Mearls said that I agree with.  Rules should not be designed to fix broken players.  

I'll add to that, "Especially at the cost of creativity."

I don't think it's fair to dismiss Frank's issues with MTP out of hand.

He agrees that it is the 'starting point' of an RPG.  Not only does it exist, it's a fundamental part of the play experience - the genesis of RPGs.  People often use Cowboys and Indians as an example and it works the same way.  An RPG takes a concept like that and adds rules to resolve actions.  There's no question whether the comboy shot the Injun dead in an RPG; you roll attacks; you roll damage - you allow the dice to define the reality of the game.  You don't say 'you're dead' followed by the other side saying 'nuh-uh'.

Everything can be solved by Magic Tea Party (or Cowboys and Indians).  Everyone can agree on what SHOULD happen, and you can have a delightful game.  

But nobody needs to pay money for a book to tell you that 'it's okay to decide what happens'.  You already could do that before the book said it was okay.  

The reason TGD is so down on MTP is because they're trying to buy a system that has rules; when it says 'just ignore the rules and decide what you think should happen' it completely invalidates the purpose of the ruleset.  Yes, of course you can always do that - but the rules shouldn't expect you to do that.  

Taking his entire statement it's pretty clear that he expects the rules you pay money for to provide more than the 'free rules' you get when you just decide what you think should happen.

Nobody here needs a book to tell them Rule 0 exists.  And if the only rule is Rule 0, then there's no reason to have a book at all.  

Magic Tea Party (taken to an extreme) is Rule 0 with no other rules.

Quote from: Ladybird;671204Trial and error, yeah. But you can help that process along by including, in the core rulebook, copious examples of how to actually use the mechanics in play and how to extrapolate from them, to help less experienced GM's get to that point faster, and that book is then more useful for play.

And the quicker you get to that point, the less comparatively rubbish sessions a new group or new GM is going to have to get through. It's those early, shitty, sessions that kill newer groups and newer players.

Already-experienced GM's can whine and bitch all they want about the book stating the obvious or somehow trying to constrain GM's, but those parts of the book just aren't for them. They don't need them, they can skip them and just move on, no problem.

Examples are good but the majority of rulings are made due to the highly circumstantial nature of the situation. If something were common enough to be a typical example then it would probably have a rule in place.

A section on how to extrapolate existing mechanics to novel situations should be a part of every rules-light system.

As far as "shitty" sessions go, thats the gaming as serious business I was talking about. A bad call or two does not automatically make a shitty session. Refusing to discuss those calls and listen to feedback doesmake it shitty.