Quote from: CRKrueger;513492Like I said, the analysis itself can be useful. The attitude associated with it is not something I would necessarily attribute to healthy gaming, but I can't make WotC see that, they have to get there themselves (and it remains to be seen if they have).

When your rules start pushing the edge cases out in the middle, there is a problem.  

First, I suppose I owe some posters an apology. From where I sit it is perfectly easy to see that 'He is Never Wrong' is a statement of Ridicule. After all, I am Spike, and I am never wrong myself, so if I have had a debate with someone then it follows, from a to b that they must, ergo, have been wrong.

Mea Culpa.


Now, since this thread is at least halfway about Frank's general contribution to gaming topics...

As risible as TGD's opinion of Diplomacy is (attributing to it magical powers among other things...) the entire topic, along with several of their comments regarding skills in general (of which Diplomacy is just one of the most visibly flawed) in the D&D model does lead one to serious contemplation of the D&D skill model.

Obviously one needs enough Ego to ignore the easy, and frequently foolish, answers that are provided by the helpful idiots of that place and engage in the serious quest for answers within the sanity (did I mean Sanctity? Did I?) of your own mind first.

And really, the value of places like the Den and people like Frank, who do call it like they see it, and who do see problems were other people just see cows, lies in the fact that they can give you the excuse you need to second guess your own assumptions.  The trick, as I stated, is finding your own answers to those questions.

The Den's answer to broken skills is to do away with skills and give everyone moar magik.

Mine is not.

But I've chosen to opt out of redesigning D&D for the most part. I'm actually rather happy with my Traveller books (sadly underused) and my Runequest books (not so much underused and raped, pillaged and burned... with love!).

With dalliances in other game systems for reasons best left unmentioned, lest they scare the womenfolk.

Benoist could you please explain what is your point?
You keep repeating one that judges rules should not take them out of context, over and over and over.

Can you give an an actual example of applying your argument in a helpful manner for improving any rules?

Could you say that some rule is used in that way and not in that way?

For example regarding the "diplomacy rule" matter. Ok, there is this rule and some criticism about that rule. You claim that this criticism does not take into consideration context. Can you give an example of context? Can you define it in a helpful way, like for example where or when one should use the rule and when one should not, compare the two and come out with an actual applicable and useful conclusion?
If not, you just come out as a frank hater.

Quote from: CRKrueger;513455The concept of the Spherical Cow (which is a common joke in physics, btw)

This was not a common joke amongst the physicists I've known in person over the years.  Prior to reading rpg message boards, I've never heard of the term "spherical cows" being used.

The term I've heard being used more commonly, is "idealized models" or "toy models" by mathematicians and physicists.

Quote from: xech;513514Benoist could you please explain what is your point?
You keep repeating one that judges rules should not take them out of context, over and over and over.

What I'm saying is that rules are meant to be used by actual people with each a particular set of personalities, ideas, goals playing a game, manners to have that fun game. I'm saying that considering a rule without giving any thought about people playing the game, and the way it can be used in a variety of ways by varying people at a game table, is failed game design and theory, by definition.

Quote from: xech;513514Can you give an an actual example of applying your argument in a helpful manner for improving any rules?

For instance, in the way you are balancing out all classes in 4e, what you are giving in effect is the same game play to all the players of the game. Same amount of resource management. Same amount of tactical play. Same everything, while the player base itself is made of varying personalities and varying tastes and varying desires concerning roleplaying games, and so on.

These desires are far better adressed by a design where you have different archetypes in the game which players with different tastes will play or not play, back and forth, switch between and so on. A player might want resource management, a very hard game at low levels for greater gratification later in the campaign, while the other doesn't care that much, wants to bother with less rules for more instant gratification through the game itself. The former will be happy with a magic user, the latter with a fighter. Some players will want one thing at one point, and then another later. They play different characters using different archetypes that give them those things when they want them.

That's an example. Of course there would be other possibilities, other types of designs and so on. I'm just giving an example as to the manner in which you either address a spectrum of realities around the game tables, or design in a vacuum that appeals to a narrow number of players by sheer coincidence or after-thought/effect (by drinking the kool aid and otherwise) instead.

Quote from: xech;513514Could you say that this rule is used in that way and not in that way?

That's not the right question, because personalities, inclinations, sociability, tactical skills, levels of abstraction, IQs, etc etc vary between players. The question is "how does this rule play with which type of player?" and from there "what is the audience of my game?" "Who are these people I am designing this game for?" "What do they like?" "How do they like it?" "How do I provide a rules system that supports the varying game plays they want?"

It's a question of spectrum, not a question of a single virtual thing divorced from reality, and then how this or that rule applies to a spectrum of possibilities, and why, not in a corner case or worse, without concern for any actual play at all.

Quote from: xech;513514If not, you just come out as a frank hater.

Well see, that's basically dumb. You're not reading what I'm saying, for one thing, and for a second thing, you're revealing here that the only point of your post is basically to discredit what I'm saying because that is rubbing your sensibilities in the wrong places. Well. Fuck that. We're not going to have a productive conversation from there, there's no point.

What I'm saying is actually very clear, and simple. The thing is, it happens to make everything Frank is harping about endlessly completely pointless, because he systematically neglects the reality of the game table in favor of an circular argumentation in a theoretical vacuum.

If Frodo has a high enough Diplomacy score to persuade Sauron, then isn't it more like Otto Bismarck meets Sauron, than Frodo, who if I recall correctly probably couldn't talk his way out of drinking poison tea (it wouldn't be polite to refuse, you know).

Quote from: Spike;513394Agreed. But relevant to my post how?

His "fixes" are not fixes at all.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;513435The Diplomacy check rant though is an example of broken thinking, not a broken rule.  Frank goes, "Why, Frodo could just ask Sauron to be his best buddy and he'd have to, because Diplomacy check!"

Wait wait wait so a hypothetical scenario arises where Frodo is facing down Sauron.  Face to Face.  And Frodo hasn't just collapsed in sheer terror.  And Frodo is going to try and convince Sauron to be his best buddy, forever, because that's what the rules say he can do.

let's ignore for a second the lunacy behind Sauron even pausing to listen to Frodo.  Let's ignore for a second that Sauron would simply reach inside Frodo's mind and snap it like a twig (or just draw his sword and slay him outright).  Let's even ignore the possibility that any of this might come to pass and focus on the circumstances.

Any DM worth his salt should have the player explaining specifically what he's telling Middle Earth's anti-Christ to try and convince him to sit down for some pipe-weed.  Allowing the player to simply roll the dice and say "Yo, major dippy roll.  I win."...?

That doesn't mean the rule is broken, it means the DM is broken.

This is all true, but the 3e Diplomacy rules are really shitty.  Per the rules, it's a DC 50 check to turn someone from hostile to friendly, so technically, Frodo is capable of doing such if he has a high enough Diplomacy score.  This is mostly due to the 3e rules being terrible overall, however.

Quote from: mhensley;513346hmmm.... that kind of sounds like someone here...  

Singular?!

Quote from: ggroy;513516This was not a common joke amongst the physicists I've known in person over the years.  Prior to reading rpg message boards, I've never heard of the term "spherical cows" being used.

The term I've heard being used more commonly, is "idealized models" or "toy models" by mathematicians and physicists.

Non-RPG context.
Again, this time as a book title.
Once more for the cheap seats.
Another term for it: Spherical Horse
Actual use in a Physics problem.

First heard of our rotund bovine in high school Physics, so would have been '85 or so.

A good product creates its market. A good game can creates its player base, its own pubic.

Today, in the era of internet, for a game to achieve this it has to be through the rules that make it what it is. Long past are the days that just presenting a new approach or idea to what people are already messing with, like D&D did back in the 70s, can be of any importance to the tabletop public.

The problem with spectrum and corner cases is the actual thing Frank discusses about. If such a distinction is clear, as is in exception based design, it becomes less of a problem. The thing with 3.xe though, is that 3.xe tries to use a mechanism inclusive for as a broad spectrum as possible and fails at that. It tries to codify everything within one common spectrum. When a player tries to choose a feat, he rather takes the game mechanics into consideration. It is like meta-gaming the game. Now, if 3.xe were successful at taking care to protect the player and the DM to make the right choices and exclude any wrong ones so that corner cases would not be a problem, then there would be no problem and everyone could focus beyond the mechanics. But this is not the case. 3.xe does not clarify context because it wants to codify and does codify everything. If the DM reaps this apart the system and perhaps player expectations may very well break.

Quote from: Benoist;513524The question is "how does this rule play with which type of player?" and from there "what is the audience of my game?" "Who are these people I am designing this game for?" "What do they like?" "How do they like it?" "How do I provide a rules system that supports the varying game plays they want?"

It's a question of spectrum, not a question of a single virtual thing divorced from reality, and then how this or that rule applies to a spectrum of possibilities, and why, not in a corner case or worse, without concern for any actual play at all.

Frank has actually cared to address what you are exactly talking about. Take a look at his post regarding theory of game design.
http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=31521

Quote from: CRKrueger;513533First heard of our rotund bovine in high school Physics, so would have been '85 or so.

Perhaps you were more in the loop than I was.  

What level of physics courses did you go up to?

I only took a few physics courses in college.  The furthest course I took was a graduate level course in quantum mechanics.  (I ended up dropping it after a month or so.  Too much homework for an optional course, that wasn't mandatory).

Quote from: xech;513536A good product creates its market. A good game can creates its player base, its own pubic.

Never judge a game by the grooming habits of its fans!

Quote from: xech;513536stuff

Way to miss the point. It's ironic, in a way.

Quote from: B.T.;513528His "fixes" are not fixes at all.

This is all true, but the 3e Diplomacy rules are really shitty.  Per the rules, it's a DC 50 check to turn someone from hostile to friendly, so technically, Frodo is capable of doing such if he has a high enough Diplomacy score.  This is mostly due to the 3e rules being terrible overall, however.

You must have missed my high handed post from an hour or two ago. The value of guys like Frank and the Gaming Den is to magnify all the little flaws and cracks in a system. If you think their doomsaying has merit, you may then check your own assumptions and evaluate it for yourself.

I don't particularly advocate taking solutions to problems from other people wholesale.  Thus the validity of his fixes is irrelevant to me.

The point made, and it is an accurate one for what its worth, is that when your fixed numbers (on both sides of the equation) far outstrip your randomizer, your methodology is horribly flawed.  There are any number of other tangents that also follow from that, but the logic of modifying a d20 roll by 50 points (for example), boggles the mind.  Likewise, the idea of ever scaling difficulties as one gets to higher levels of game play (not necessarily higher level characters, though they do go hand in hand...). Once you've climbed the verticle slick wall of DC 30 a few dozen times, the GM needs to invent the 'Inverted wall of telekinetically shoving you away for DC 40) to continue to challenge your rogue.

Meanwhile, the wizard casts fly and ignores it exactly the same.

Notice I merely call attention to a potential problem with the system as designed. I don't say: And Franks Says We Fix It by Ditching Skills All Together... And Giving Fighters A Fly Spell!

WHich is, honest to god, the Den's solution.  Because some idiot didn't think too hard about escalating DCs and a limited randomizer, and 'how to challenge your high skill player at 'endgame'.  Its not throwing the baby out with the bathwater, its seeing the baby in the bathwater and... moving to the woods so you don't have to take baths.

Quote from: Benoist;513540Way to miss the point. It's ironic, in a way.

Yep, the ironic thing is your post here.
The point of my first post was to ask you to clarify if you had any actual point beyond ranting against frank.

You answered back, trying to explain that your point was about not ignoring the expectations of your public. And I replied back, trying to explain to you, that in fact no one does that, certainly not frank, if you cared to read the link I posted.

We are back at point 0. You still have to explain the point of your rant.