Any comparison between RPGs and technology is fundamentally broken.

Quote from: Benoist;513608The ultimate offenders and best examples of this is when one claims a rule is "broken", or a system is "not functional", simply because you find something problematic with it. It's over the top all-or-nothing rhetoric that is basically useless, to me.

True, however, just because the boy who cried Wolf is crying Wolf, doesn't mean there isn't one.  What I mean by that is of course oWoD isn't broken and non-functional because people have been playing happily for 20 years.  Same with whatever game you want to talk about.  However, I would rather the Rainmen be out there pointing stuff out to me because then I have information to make a determination if that rule issue will effect me.  

The Diplomancer (or Pornomancer from SR4) isn't a problem for me because I'm not going to let the skill do that, it's asinine.  Same with Pun-Pun.  The problems with SR4 Wireless Hacking - pretty much a problem for me.  The cannonball salesman problem - not a problem for me for all the reasons Spike came up with.

You talk about rules in a vacuum vs. actually hitting tables, but there are, unfortunately, a lot of tables out there where what hits is RAW.  So if RAW doesn't do what it sets out to do, there are problems.

Now we can talk about the MMOGification of RPGs, the Cult of the Designer, WotC bringing Magic design philosophy to RPGs, and how all this has created a  cancer eating away at the heart of the hobby, but that has nothing to really do with Frank.  True he's not trying to cure the cancer, but he sure is good at identifying it's various forms.  

Now all the other crap, like Black Orcs, all of Medieval Europe was Mad Max with swords, etc... is a whole nother brand of bullshit.

Nah, see. That's where we disagree, Krueger. I have had enough of the Rainmen. These guys have highjacked the hobby for the last ten years to the point the rules quite literally became the game, and vice versa. Enough is enough.

Quote from: beejazz;513623There's taste, and then there's rules that serve no purpose well.

If you can quote some that no-one in the ether disagrees with, then i'll concede the point.

There's always someone that'll say that a rule agrees with their group. All you have to do is look at some threads about one of the more contentious Forge games to realise that this is true.

Likewise, there's always someone to say that a rule disagrees with their group - which is why the cult of the 'designer knows best' is a crock of shit.

No game, adventure, or supplement survives contact with the playing group.

Fact.

Quote from: Benoist;513628Nah, see. That's where we disagree, Krueger. I have had enough of the Rainmen. These guys have highjacked the hobby for the last ten years to the point the rules quite literally became the game, and vice versa. Enough is enough.

Ok, so you wanna see that whole aspect of the hobby go away.  I can empathize, I just don't think that's gonna happen, although hopefully 5e can tone it down some.

I don't want it to go away entirely, no. I want it to be part of the whole spectrum the game talks to. I just don't want it to highjack the entirety of the game's design process, or to be considered the only audience that matters.

Quote from: One Horse Town;513619Much like beauty, bad rules are in the eye of
the beholder.

So there is no need, or any way, to decipher any practical consequences of rules since roleplaying gaming is subjective and there are other factors like GM houseruling, player psychology and scenario that condemns rules analysis to spherical cows.

Is this thread for real?

Of course, things like player psychology are real, especially for those that have some playing education by their past experiences. This does not mean though that one should not analyse rules as what they are or by doing so they are losing their time instead of doing things more useful.

Ok, there is OD&D, sure. Modern games though need more solid structure for some reason or another. Mostly due to people's time restraints and increased demands. Most probably, what most DMs want to be running, it better be as easy, straightforward and intuitive as possible but based on solid rules that everyone on the table respects rather than his own handwavium of the moment.

Quote from: One Horse Town;513629If you can quote some that no-one in the ether disagrees with, then i'll concede the point.

You have met this internet you refer to, haven't you?

QuoteThere's always someone that'll say that a rule agrees with their group. All you have to do is look at some threads about one of the more contentious Forge games to realise that this is true.

Main thing is I think the RAW is bad for most groups in the case of diplomacy, and a few other things.

When I talk about Vance requiring specific in-game contexts to work though, it's not about being bad design for everybody. It's about narrowing the range of scenarios the game handles well. For an example.

If every time you run a game without wandering monsters or a deadline, things get super easy, then maybe there's a problem. If the same happens every time you have fewer than four fights per session, again that significantly narrows the utility of the game.

QuoteLikewise, there's always someone to say that a rule disagrees with their group - which is why the cult of the 'designer knows best' is a crock of shit.

No game, adventure, or supplement survives contact with the playing group.

Fact.

Really, though, there are ways to minimize damage. The fact that people have different needs and tastes in cars is no excuse for glass tires.

Quote from: xech;513633So there is no need, or any way, to decipher any practical consequences of rules since roleplaying gaming is subjective and there are other factors like GM houseruling, player psychology and scenario that condemns rules analysis to spherical cows.

Is this thread for real?

Of course, things like player psychology are real, especially for those that have some playing education by their past experiences. This does not mean though that one should not analyse rules as what they are or by doing so they are losing their time instead of doing things more useful.

Ok, there is OD&D, sure. Modern games though need more solid structure for some reason or another. Mostly due to people's time restraints and increased demands. Most probably, what most DMs want to be running, it better be as easy, straightforward and intuitive as possible but based on solid rules that everyone on the table respects rather than his own handwavium of the moment.

Thy name is excluded middle.

Quote from: B.T.;51361216 Charisma: +3.
Skill ranks: Level + 3.
Skill synergies: +6.
Circlet of Persuasion: +3.
Feats: +5.

This is all core stuff, no gonzo involved, and it's not even high level.  It requires a single magic item that costs 4,500gp.  I'm even toning the Charisma score down.

Okay, by including a magic item, you found +9 (+4 synergy, +3 circlet, +2 feats) that I didn't.  

QuoteIf you want to go gonzo, you can pump it up way higher.  But in the core rules, you can get much higher Diplomacy checks than what you suggested--you're rolling 1d20 + 20 + your level.  At which point, you can take a -10 penalty to make a Diplomacy check as a full-round action and turn Sauron from hostile to indifferent (DC 25) fairly easily.

Well, now you're shifting goalposts, but whatever. So the PC is able to convince Sauron to ignore him and have him sent away rather than simply kill him on the spot. Shouldn't a talented and trained diplomat be able to soothe his enemies, especially if he's using magic to help him? This doesn't sound horrible to me, at this point. If a player is spending his resources to be good at diplomacy, he should be good at it.

"Rules as what they are" is nothing. At all.

A rule has to be played in a particular context with particular people, particular circumstances, a whole game system in play around it, using particular characters, a particular setting, etc. to mean something, anything at a game table.

Let me take an example of a demi-human character with level caps, or the disparity of power between a fighter and MU in AD&D. If you account for the lethality of the game, reaching level X is a feat by itself. What you get in practice is players playing multiple characters of different classes, often simultaneously, at different levels of experience, multiple groups, including demi-humans and humans, whatnot. By the time your multiclassed demi-humans reach anywhere near their level limits, you have your single classed human already tackling the Tomb of Horrors. You play a fighter with this group and a MU with that one, and your buddy wizard when you play your fighter in this particular session does the same. Of course, you would not know that if you fudged rolls to let characters survive at first levels, if you let the players only play one single character in the campaign as though this were a "story" and so on.

Actual play. Context. Circumstances. These things are universally missing from the arguments of the armchair theorists.

Quote from: Ladybird;513593"The game" isn't what you buy when you buy an RPG book, though; what you buy is the rules.

If the rules aren't functional, then the product that you have bought isn't functional. I shouldn't have to edit the game myself to make the basic concepts playable; that's the games developer's job, and that's what I paid for when I bought the book.

I completely disagree with this. The RPG is not the rules. I don't buy RPG books just for their rules. I buy them for their settings and their inherent conceits that creates its own logic, and thus births appropriate rules. I buy their own "world logic"; I am buying a packaged deal on an alternate way to think. And I don't expect any logical discipline to be completely perfect (none is in the real world, so why for just a game?) -- so just functional enough.

I am not just buying the logic of the book's math and rules. I'm buying the logic of the book's world. I am buying context with which to choose which functions are relevant to apply. This is comprised of conceits a) which guides permissible rules decisions (i.e. no Create Water spell in original Dark Sun), b) which empower GM override of rules (Sauron is a non-negotiable figure), and c) which allow delightful gray area tailoring where players, both GM and PCs, negotiate the application of Core Rules, GM Fiat, and Setting Conceits within the world's own logical context.

Quote from: Benoist;513638"Rules as what they are" is nothing. At all.

A rule has to be played in a particular context with particular people, particular circumstances, a whole game system in play around it, using particular characters, a particular setting, etc. to mean something, anything at a game table.

I don't think one would argue that you can't analyze the rules of chess outside play. Rules are for play. If a rule is consistently ignored it should be excised. If it is frequently altered it should be changed. If people want an absent rule, something should be written in. If a rule depends on an in-game context (like wandering monsters or deadlines) it should damn well say in the advice.

DMs do not begin play as experts.
Rules have consequences that are not always predictable.
Yes rulings over rules.
But the rules most overruled are still generally bad rules.

QuoteLet me take an example of a demi-human character with level caps, or the disparity of power between a fighter and MU in AD&D. If you account for the lethality of the game, reaching level X is a feat by itself. What you get in practice is players playing multiple characters of different classes, often simultaneously, at different levels of experience, multiple groups, including demi-humans and humans, whatnot. By the time your multiclassed demi-humans reach anywhere near their level limits, you have your single classed human already tackling the Tomb of Horrors. Of course, you would not know that if you fudged rolls to let characters survive at first levels, if you let the players only play one single character in the campaign as though this were a "story" and so on.

Actual play. Context. Circumstances. These things are universally missing from the arguments of the armchair theorists.

Someone made an invalid criticism of rules you like therefore criticism of rules is invalid.

Criticism that takes play into account can still find ways to improve on the rules. That's where houserules come from, after all.

Quote from: Benoist;513638If you account for the lethality of the game, reaching level X is a feat by itself.

This speaks for itself.
It is one gameplay condition so extreme, that every other rules imbalance matter pales in comparison. The deal though is that modern games do not want to adhere to such strict gameplay conditions. Most people do not have the time to bother with multiple campaigns either.

What I believe most people want, since their game table time is limited, is to create/build and then bring at the table the character concept they want to identify themselves with and go on some cool adventure with other people where they can show their character concept in a cool and engaging way, and for this kind of investment to succeed, especially in the long term, rules do matter. It is not about corner cases. It is about rules as rules: how straightforward they are, if they allow corner case problems or not, if they are annoying or intuitive...

You fail at understanding what I am saying, beejazz. Try again.

As for Xech. Dude. You're not even trying yet.