Quote from: estar;514240Here is a hint, every system out there is broken. Fails on some level to simulate the genre or reality.

I'm fine with the inevitability of human error. I'm fine with the fact that there's no accounting for taste. But it doesn't follow that because some rules are criticized unfairly or because most rules are good that there aren't genuinely bad rules. It doesn't follow that it isn't worth talking about what rules actually do when the rubber hits the road.

There are specific rules I have problems with, and you may or may not agree on those, but the main thrust of what I'm getting at is that the criticism is valid. Enough rules don't work that the existence of the discussion has the potential to help.

QuotePart of what the human referee does is handle what the rules can't do.

I'm fine with that, and never really argued against it. Again, if anything I'm more okay with fewer better rules and leaving *more* in play to the DM. Just giving overall "a task this hard should have this DC" rules (as in easy:10 as opposed to specific cases) and then having diplomacy do something that isn't "best friends forever" would have been better, for example.

Actually I think interpersonal skills like stealth and diplo should take into account the other person's ability, and that defense should auto-scale like saves across the board. So in my version there'd be diplo vs will and stealth vs a perception save. But that's neither here nor there.

QuoteThe criteria whether this an issue does it hinder the referee in preparing or refereeing the campaign.

My criteria is based on how often the rule actually gets used as written. Really, if the game is to evolve I think the rules should reflect the most common rulings.

QuoteIt been my experience that most RPG mechanics are of the good enough category. Yes if you push it you get a Pun-Pun or a diplomancer but for 90% of what the game is expected to cover it works and works well.

I can't speak to most RPG mechanics, as there is more out there than I've read. But my experience with 3x is that the game breaks down at sufficiently high levels. It's a common experience and complaint, from what I've heard.

Quote from: beejazz;514244I can't speak to most RPG mechanics, as there is more out there than I've read. But my experience with 3x is that the game breaks down at sufficiently high levels. It's a common experience and complaint, from what I've heard.

IMO, this comes from the fact the advice and methodologies provided in the DMG to run high level campaigns are completely inadequate. When WotC had a shot at this, to come up with an actual supplement that provided this breakdown, discussion, strategizing, methodologies etc to run high level campaigns, what they came up with instead was the likes of the Epic Level Handbook.

That's a MASSIVE Failure of game design on WotC's part, IMO.

Quote from: Benoist;514242First, caveat: I just read your answer to me in your long post above. I didn't read the rest of your stuff.

Now, we do agree on some things, apparently. I think fledging GMs are much better serviced by clear rules principles assisted by strong, well-thought out methodologies (which is where structures like dungeons are extremely useful, because they provide a concrete support for these types of advice) which empower the users of the game instead of trapping them into a box of game mechanics.

Extreme agreement on most of what you are saying there. What I actually liked in 3x was the simple stuff like "D20 roll high" and its potential as a springboard for winging it. And what I like from eventually getting to read earlier editions has a lot to do with the DM advice and the adventures fostering a style of gameplay in which the rules worked extremely well.

But I started with 3x and for a noob it is not great. Some of it is the math breaking down and weird bits like toughness. And some of it is the (relative) dearth of advice on running the game, and game structures.

QuoteWe just have different approaches as to the role the rules system itself must play in this picture, apparently. I am advocating the plain fact that the game being played is constituted of different moving parts, including the game system but not only. I am also advocating for games to empower their users, not limit them. I am advocating for developing people's understanding of the games they play (not just their rules), so they can develop true game mastery (i.e. understand these moving parts and actually run the game as competently as they can). Good refereeing, decision making, adjudication, extrapolation, imagination are fundamental aspects of this game (tabletop role playing games) which let their users take charge of their own make-believe. This should be helped, coached, encouraged.

I am aware that the game is also the adventure, the setting, and the social environment (different moving parts). But there are criticisms of both of the former and the last one is much much harder to quantify let alone "fix" using online discussion. In short, I think the reason the system gets disproportionate attention is because it's the thing with the most consistent problems and solutions.

Also when someone tells me I shouldn't run a certain type of adventure (meeting the villain, in the case of diplomacy) because a rules snag exists it isn't particularly useful.

As to encouraging and providing more useful content/insight/analysis for everything else, I would strongly agree. No reason we can't have both.

QuoteThe problem I see is that each time GMs say something like "You know, I could handle that issue, but I shouldn't have to," what they are doing in effect is giving up on a chance to develop true game mastery. I don't see that as a good thing.

I think it's more a case of wanting the rules to work generally, and to do what they say they do. Players who want to fight well want to pick the fighter and fight well, and not have their asses kicked by the druid who picked his class to be a nature lover. Players who want to be tough want to pick the toughness feat and actually be tough, and so on.

So when they say they "shouldn't have to" it's often the case that they're simply expecting the rules to do what the rules say they do. Because some of that kind of troubleshooting really is just a PITA, especially when you fail to predict it in advance.

QuoteThe same way, game systems which treat their users as completely unimaginative, subdued, lazy, gutless incompetents drinking the kool aid from the game designers above should be shot in the head and ditched on the side of the road to game mastery.

This is my reaction to the anti-fly crowd. I'm all for having all the content that fits the genre. I'm all for calling for lateral thinking and that sort of thing. And I'm definitely against all content being single utility (all combat for example). But again that's different from just getting the math right.

QuoteThe elistist here isn't the one you think. I don't believe that fledging players and GMs today are any less competent than we were when we started playing role playing games decades ago. We could help them with our experience running games, with sound advice and methodologies, but instead we choose to obsess over completely pointless issues of rules systems taken in theoretical vacuums.

Started with 3x myself, as did most of those I game with. So I know exactly what the difficulty of the learning curve is set at, having climbed it myself. I don't think I'm over or under estimating myself or my friends. A bit of relevant context, I guess.

But the rules can become problematic at which point they become an unnecessary distraction. And the game running advice, while appreciated, doesn't invalidate the use of "here's the problem with x rules, here's a quick fix, go play secure in the knowledge that you've avoided that pitfall."

QuoteThis is a waste of time that's more appealing to asperger types than real gamers out there. You know, the ones that play and run games, run into something not making sense with the rules, having the GM make a call to then move on with the session.

And there are rules snags of the minor speed bump variety. But there are also rules of the "shit I need to redesign or not allow this class, but only now that they guy reached 10th level has it become apparent" variety.

QuoteAs for a "broken system", this is a red herring, as far as I'm concerned. If a system is thoroughly non-functional, i.e. "broken", then it's impossible to play it, by definition, without having the game crash and burn. If it is played, and moreover, widely popular, with millions of people having fun with it, the system is by definition not "broken". There may be concerns, issues that would need fixing, maybe, and I may certainly not like it for reason X or Y, but "broken" really is not the appropriate term for 99.99% of the issues discussed by armchair theorists on message boards.

I misspoke. I intended to refer to broken rules I think, though there are genuinely systemic issues at high levels of 3x.

I don't disagree about 99% of what armchair theorists say, if only because I haven't read all of it and can't say for sure. But the existence of bad analysis doesn't invalidate the potential value of good analysis.

QuoteThis is not an excluded-middle proposition on my part: rules issues that are really detrimental to game play deserve to be talked about and maybe fixed at the source at some point. But all I see coming from too many forum posters is just over-the-top, doomsday rhetoric based on either corner cases that just do not matter to 99% of gamers playing the game out there, or completely unrealistic scenarios resting on a (willful or not) misunderstanding, or worse, rejection, of the context of the rules system and the game that surrounds it. That is not good.

Again, not defending bad analysis so much as the potential for analysis to do good.

Quote from: Benoist;514247IMO, this comes from the fact the advice and methodologies provided in the DMG to run high level campaigns are completely inadequate. When WotC had a shot at this, to come up with an actual supplement that provided this breakdown, discussion, strategizing, methodologies etc to run high level campaigns, what they came up with instead was the likes of the Epic Level Handbook.

That's a MASSIVE Failure of game design on WotC's part, IMO.

A good illustration of what I'm getting at. Good advice isn't a substitute for good rules, nor are good rules a substitute for good advice. I'd like a game to get at least one of the two right, though.

Quote from: beejazz;514244I'm fine with the inevitability of human error.

Human error is not what I am talking about. It is impossible to write a RPG rule system that doesn't break down at some point. The subject matter of RPGs, characters interacting with a setting, is complex enough that no playable RPG design can account for everything.

It is possible to come up with game design that are so well designed that there is no or few design issues. Chess, Checkers, Settlers of Catan, Monopoly, etc. But they are tightly focused compared to a typical RPG.

The problem is similar to being able to make a computer that can simulate the entire universe. If you could build and a program such a machine there are several inherent limitations you can't get around.

Quote from: beejazz;514244I'm fine with the fact that there's no accounting for taste. But it doesn't follow that because some rules are criticized unfairly or because most rules are good that there aren't genuinely bad rules. It doesn't follow that it isn't worth talking about what rules actually do when the rubber hits the road.

Sure, but so far in this thread most of the specific criticisms. (Diplomancer, Pun-pun, etc) are of the "So what?" variety. They are the result of hacks that observant and/or smart people figured out. But in practical terms are irrelevant to the majority using those games.

Quote from: beejazz;514244There are specific rules I have problems with, and you may or may not agree on those, but the main thrust of what I'm getting at is that the criticism is valid. Enough rules don't work that the existence of the discussion has the potential to help.

I don't see you mentioning anything about how these rules hindered you in running a campaign. I.e. specific examples from your experience as a referee.

Quote from: beejazz;514244I'm fine with that, and never really argued against it. Again, if anything I'm more okay with fewer better rules and leaving *more* in play to the DM.

Well there are those who advocate that fewer rules is part of being better. I am not one of them. Good design no matter the complexity is what I care about. Complexity (or detail) is a matter of taste not a design issue. While I play a lot of Swords & Wizadry these days, I also use GURPS, Hero System, Harnmaster, and other complex and detailed RPGs. I use them because I found them to be well-designed games.

Quote from: beejazz;514244Just giving overall "a task this hard should have this DC" rules (as in easy:10 as opposed to specific cases) and then having diplomacy do something that isn't "best friends forever" would have been better, for example.

I am sighing because this will cause a shitstorm over rule interpretation. If you read the actual description of diplomacy it is very terse. It doesn't automatically require the referee to allow automatically a character to make a hostile foe into a ally by his epic oratory. It written in expectation that the referee would use an ounce of common sense. Even when it used in a high epic fantasy situation.

Sure there are example of Saints making a conversion out of a hostile foe but they are noted because they are notable. I.e. it is damn uncommon for it to happen.  If the circumstances are right a player could use his +86 to convert a target in an unlikely situation. But the player should realize that the majority of circumstances are not right. A smart player would plan ahead and create the right circumstances which usually involves avoiding armies that would attack them.

Quote from: beejazz;514244Actually I think interpersonal skills like stealth and diplo should take into account the other person's ability, and that defense should auto-scale like saves across the board. So in my version there'd be diplo vs will and stealth vs a perception save. But that's neither here nor there.

That is a pure mechanical way of looking. What matters are the circumstances in which the player finds themselves. That why the human referee not the rules are important. The responsibility of the player is to be observant and respond to the situation in which his character is in. In cases where the player's personal skill doesn't match his character skill then it is the referee responsibility to account for that.

My personal rule is that they have to try to come up with a coherent plan or idea and I will let them roll. While I would like to see a roleplay performance worthy of Shakespeare very few can do that and very few are even interested in trying to perform. So at my table what I am looking for is whether the players understands what is going on, and have they thought their character's actions through. If yes to both point and a roll is required then they get to throw the dice.

Quote from: beejazz;514244My criteria is based on how often the rule actually gets used as written. Really, if the game is to evolve I think the rules should reflect the most common rulings.

In the age of the internet that may be possible, bits are cheap. But realistically a lot of the complaints are really personal preferences and not the fault of the rule system.

Quote from: beejazz;514244I can't speak to most RPG mechanics, as there is more out there than I've read. But my experience with 3x is that the game breaks down at sufficiently high levels. It's a common experience and complaint, from what I've heard.

Yes I agree 3.X categorically breaks down at high levels as the referee and players are overwhelmed by the complexity of using the rules. By overwhelmed I mean they prepare to do one thing but when applied the rules result in something completely unexpected. That a problem because now neither the players and referee can feel confident about the stuff they design.

Quote from: jibbajibba;514228We played for 4 hours they had a great time everyone was involved all loved it and were clamouring for more.
Now .... whilst this worked entirely well after all all the elements of play were there, I wouldn't recommend it as a professional rules system....

Why not? It sounds like a good game design to me: simple to learn, rules easy to absorb so one isn't often looking up mechanics during the game, the players have a great time and want to play more. Sounds like the basis for a very professional design to me.

I don't get this strange fixation on having 'perfect' rules. It's not like our work, home, relationships or societies are perfect. We fix little things all the time and it's no different in RPGs. No designer can create the perfect set of rules and beyond a certain point the attempt can be counter productive as witnessed by the relentless powder balance sought by 4E.

What a good game designer can do, however is to clearly articulate the intent and underlying assumptions of the game. Sell the players on that and beyond a certain minimum standard most rules will do.

3E/3.5 certainly has some fundamental problems, best articulated by Spike's spot everything character and yet it was/is one of the most popular RPGs ever and plenty of people play and enjoy the game at high levels despite it being 'broken'.

Quote from: jeff37923;514048Thank you. I still think it is a pretty good quote for a signature.

And I have to wonder what in the Hell made you want to research a signature? I never gave it any more thought than, "That sounds cool."

I researched it because it sounded so cool I wanted to quote it somewhere else!

Quote from: estar;514265Human error is not what I am talking about. It is impossible to write a RPG rule system that doesn't break down at some point. The subject matter of RPGs, characters interacting with a setting, is complex enough that no playable RPG design can account for everything.

.........

.

All very reasonable but there has been reference to specific rules that 'seem' to be broken in D&D
Of the type -
i) how do hit points stop me dying from a fall?
ii) how come I only get 2 arrow shots in 1 minutes (your own )?
iii) why would a 6th level fighter ever be scared of a man aiming a loaded crossbow at his naked chest from 3 feet away?

Now I think D&D woudl have benefited from a far clearer rule on when Hitpoints work and when they don't. So we have vague references to killing helpless opponents, even suggestion in AD&D that you use the Assasination tables (the Assasination tables by the way are something we really should discuss beause if you don't like feats then a class ability to eliminate a creature through careful planning and a %d is worthy of discussion ) or whatever.
A simple paragraph that dealt with situations like being caught flatfooted by a man with a loaded crossbow, falling, burning and all that stuff woudl have been good and saved a load of later issues.

Its like HP themselves if they actually are the ability to turn a death blow into a scratch or a sword through the innards to a gash should really be based off Dex not Con......

I would say Hitpoints are a good concept that have been really badly implemented with little thought to their repurcusions outside combat and how they relate to immersion. In fact almost like a 4e rule.......

Quote from: jibbajibba;514382All very reasonable but there has been reference to specific rules that 'seem' to be broken in D&D
Of the type -
i) how do hit points stop me dying from a fall?
ii) how come I only get 2 arrow shots in 1 minutes (your own )?
iii) why would a 6th level fighter ever be scared of a man aiming a loaded crossbow at his naked chest from 3 feet away?

Err, there was no mention of hit points in any form in your description of your game. So I'm still wondering why you believe the game you briefly described isn't something that one could base a professional design on.

Quote from: estar;514265It is impossible to write a RPG rule system that doesn't break down at some point.

This seems like a pretty big assertion. I don't know if it's true, but it doesn't change that some rules can be improved with no particular loss by way of careful analysis.

I'm certain a rules system can't *cover* everything (and that's fine; we have GMs for a reason), but it doesn't absolutely have to "break down." Also, where a system "breaks down" (if it does) matters. D&D breaking down a little outside the dungeon is fine because the dungeon is what it was built for. If 3x broke down after level 20 I'd be fine with it because it was really only built as a 20-level game. And so on.

QuoteSure, but so far in this thread most of the specific criticisms. (Diplomancer, Pun-pun, etc) are of the "So what?" variety. They are the result of hacks that observant and/or smart people figured out. But in practical terms are irrelevant to the majority using those games.

Except that the level 6 thing is the least relevant flaw in the diplomancer. The main flaw is what the skill actually does. It's trivial to fix but not easy to notice until you really look at it for a while.

QuoteI don't see you mentioning anything about how these rules hindered you in running a campaign. I.e. specific examples from your experience as a referee.

I do now and again. For example when I talk about the long mystery campaign I ran and trying to challenge the whole party in a one fight day. Or when that one guy cast sanctuary (I think) and hit this weird stalemate where no one could fight and he couldn't flee (after everyone else had already ran away). Hell, just the weirdness of divine casters getting their whole lists and making it so I've got to know it all. I had time for that crap in highschool, but not for a while now.

Issues with high level play I've seen too, but mostly second hand. I really don't have the time to rewrite the whole damn system, as I've seen others do. Again, the interesting part (for me) are people, places, treasure, monsters, adventures, mysteries, etc.

QuoteWell there are those who advocate that fewer rules is part of being better. I am not one of them. Good design no matter the complexity is what I care about. Complexity (or detail) is a matter of taste not a design issue. While I play a lot of Swords & Wizadry these days, I also use GURPS, Hero System, Harnmaster, and other complex and detailed RPGs. I use them because I found them to be well-designed games.

I'm an advocate for the written rules being an improvement over no rule. Diplomacy's description is not an improvement over the absence of a rule. I'm not saying (for example) that a game shouldn't have hit locations or feats because it's too many rules. I'm saying it should use the rules it has well.

QuoteI am sighing because this will cause a shitstorm over rule interpretation. If you read the actual description of diplomacy it is very terse. It doesn't automatically require the referee to allow automatically a character to make a hostile foe into a ally by his epic oratory. It written in expectation that the referee would use an ounce of common sense. Even when it used in a high epic fantasy situation.

RAW calls for a hostile to helpful transition. The fact that an experienced DM will either not allow it in play or houserule it altogether doesn't change that that's what's written down, and doesn't change the fact that the rule is a waste of space as a result.

[quote[Sure there are example of Saints making a conversion out of a hostile foe but they are noted because they are notable. I.e. it is damn uncommon for it to happen.  If the circumstances are right a player could use his +86 to convert a target in an unlikely situation. But the player should realize that the majority of circumstances are not right. A smart player would plan ahead and create the right circumstances which usually involves avoiding armies that would attack them.

That is a pure mechanical way of looking. What matters are the circumstances in which the player finds themselves. That why the human referee not the rules are important. The responsibility of the player is to be observant and respond to the situation in which his character is in. In cases where the player's personal skill doesn't match his character skill then it is the referee responsibility to account for that. [/quote]
Circumstance penalties don't scale with level. Eventually you'll either inflate the penalties or find in game excuses to do so, just to avoid what is written in the rules as possible using diplomacy. This is not an improvement over having no rule there, as at this point you're just setting arbitrarily high DCs.

QuoteMy personal rule is that they have to try to come up with a coherent plan or idea and I will let them roll. While I would like to see a roleplay performance worthy of Shakespeare very few can do that and very few are even interested in trying to perform. So at my table what I am looking for is whether the players understands what is going on, and have they thought their character's actions through. If yes to both point and a roll is required then they get to throw the dice.

So why not have a rule in the game that roughly matches how sane people actually use diplomacy, instead of a rule with an insane upper end?

QuoteIn the age of the internet that may be possible, bits are cheap. But realistically a lot of the complaints are really personal preferences and not the fault of the rule system.

Some opinions are held by a majority (can't think of anyone with a special fondness for RAW diplo) and some rules are just bad.

QuoteYes I agree 3.X categorically breaks down at high levels as the referee and players are overwhelmed by the complexity of using the rules. By overwhelmed I mean they prepare to do one thing but when applied the rules result in something completely unexpected. That a problem because now neither the players and referee can feel confident about the stuff they design.

It's not so much complexity as the failure to scale and the built in widening gaps. If the whole party is fighting the same monster, then one part of the party will only be checking for fumbles or crits, depending on who's good against what. Then there's the "optional save" in perception and no save diplomacy and so on. This is before taking combos or the pile of spells into consideration.

Quote from: jibbajibba;514382Its like HP themselves if they actually are the ability to turn a death blow into a scratch or a sword through the innards to a gash should really be based off Dex not Con....

I don't know about this part. The way you lose them makes me think they're really more about the fatigue you suffer trying to dodge/roll with it, especially given that you've got that passive DEX-based AC.

QuoteThis seems like a pretty big assertion. I don't know if it's true, but it doesn't change that some rules can be improved with no particular loss by way of careful analysis.

It is a correct assertion. The Perfect RPG System had been the desire underlining pretty much every RPG/Edition War ever. Even Storygames will have no perfect mechanic, because of the fact that genres and stories are very, very different.

The rest of your points, so to speak, are basically "Exactly, Rincewind, you are right". In their desire to create a mechanic emulating everything, 3e of course put in a lot of bugs.

Quote from: Rincewind1;514406The rest of your points, so to speak, are basically "Exactly, Rincewind, you are right". In their desire to create a mechanic emulating everything, 3e of course put in a lot of bugs.

Sorry, but this discussion has gone sort of long. I scanned back through page 26 and all I saw was Traveller stuff. What am I agreeing with now?

Quote from: beejazz;514407Sorry, but this discussion has gone sort of long. I scanned back through page 26 and all I saw was Traveller stuff. What am I agreeing with now?

To the idea that there's no perfect system, and the more you try to make a system that'll allow to emulate every real - life occasion, the possibility of bugs/flaws in the system increases.

Quote from: Rincewind1;514408To the idea that there's no perfect system, and the more you try to make a system that'll allow to emulate every real - life occasion, the possibility of bugs/flaws in the system increases.

Tell you what: I see RPG rules like living organisms or machines. There isn't perfection. Just adaptation to or design for a particular niche, with the occasional highly successful generalists.

Perfection is kind of a dumb goal. But it is useful to set some goal and improve rules for the purpose of the goal (even if the goal is general applicability). Sometimes there are trade offs and taste applies. Sometimes there's no trade offs and one rule is genuinely superior to another in the vast majority of cases.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;514153Re: Diplomacy

The 3.0 and 3.5 Diplomacy skill description is conceptually flawed. I was going to suggest a different option, but a quick check of Pathfinder showed they had already implemented it. (And a slower check of my 3e house rules from 2002 showed I had done substantially the same thing.)

Permanent change of NPC attitude is a bad idea. Pathfinder allows Diplomacy to do two things: 1. Temporarily change the target's attitude, and 2. ask for a favor. Different uses, requiring different checks.

They also add restrictions, such as needing time, the target having a minimal Intelligence, being willing to listen, being able to understand, and combat not occurring.

Other than adjusting their DC's, that's how Diplomacy should work.

My Personal Diplomacy DC's

The Base DC of a Diplomacy check is the Level or HD of the target. This DC is modified by their Wisdom modifier. It is also modified by their current attitude towards the character attempting a Diplomacy check.

Hostile +15
Unfriendly +5
Indifferent +0
Friendly: -5
Helpful: -10

(I would have broken the skill up into two separate uses, each explicitly dealing with only one of those functions, but that's just a personal preference.)

Also, truly implacable characters should have the extraordinary ability I suggested earlier.

Which raises the question in my mind: if there was a good fix already available, why hasn't anyone mentioned it? It would have been terribly easy:

"3E Diplomacy sucks balls. Pathfinder did it much better."

Has this all just been edition wars, by proxy? An OSR/3e battle where no one cares about solutions, only arguing first principles? A waste of time, if so. IMNSHO.

(Also, Fred proves nothing about anything being broken, other than Internet debates. You know, the kind where people use the most ridiculous, extreme examples and claim they're a typical case, and extrapolate even worse consequences from them, then claim they prove the game is broken. That's the very definition of a "Spherical Cow". 3e Diplomacy is done incorrectly, but Fred is irrelevant to real play under real GM's.)

You're right about the 3.x Diplomacy rules being terribly flawed. The Pathfinder rules for Diplomacy work better. I think I'll use them for my 3.5 game.

What normally occurs in my D&D 3.5 game sessions, is the players and I actually roleplay the encounter with an NPC, and then I have the players make a Diplomacy skill check to help determine how the NPC reacts to what they say (or do).

But yeah, the Pathfinder version of Diplomacy is more elegant than the 3.5 version, and leads to fewer stupid situations. I'll take it.