Quote from: BedrockBrendan;565719Why is regularly bypassing challenges through creativity a problem if everyone in the group enjoys it? Personally I am not phased as a GM if the players overcome a hard challenge through creative use of a spell. I know plenty of players that are fine with it as well.

You may not care but some people are very against people using their spells to be more effective than say... a fighter. I believe there was a lot of hoopla over Kaelik's Archer Cleric in the Wiz v Fight thread and I don't remember you defending it as a creative way of using his abilities.

Quote from: MGuy;565723You may not care but some people are very against people using their spells to be more effective than say... a fighter. I believe there was a lot of hoopla over Kaelik's Archer Cleric in the Wiz v Fight thread and I don't remember you defending it as a creative way of using his abilities.

Sure, some people may be (though again class parity is something of a seperate issue as are not talking about specific systems).

The point being if you are uncomfortable with GMs being in charge of adjudicating this part of the game and want more concrete guideines that is fine. I can see how some groups might want this. But game design isn't one size fits all. There is room for variety. I happen to prefer games where the Gm plays an important role in handling illusions. What is so wrong with someone making such a game and me playing it? I get it is not your preference, but not everyone shares your preference.

Quote from: MGuy;565723You may not care but some people are very against people using their spells to be more effective than say... a fighter. I believe there was a lot of hoopla over Kaelik's Archer Cleric in the Wiz v Fight thread and I don't remember you defending it as a creative way of using his abilities.

You are full of more shit than a Christmas turkey.

Kaelik's Archer Demon was a CharOp munchkin which you are conflating with creative use of a single spell. Apples and Oranges, dude. Not the same thing.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;565728Sure, some people may be (though again class parity is something of a seperate issue as are not talking about specific systems).

The point being if you are uncomfortable with GMs being in charge of adjudicating this part of the game and want more concrete guideines that is fine. I can see how some groups might want this. But game design isn't one size fits all. There is room for variety. I happen to prefer games where the Gm plays an important role in handling illusions. What is so wrong with someone making such a game and me playing it? I get it is not your preference, but not everyone shares your preference.

You're doing that thing again where you are viewing what I'm saying as some kind of attack on your playing style. It's not. These are facts. I mentioned earlier Rules-lite systems. In rules-lite systems people playing them do not care what the rules are because they specifically want the rules out of the way. That is what you are saying you want. There is no problem with that if you like that sort of thing (side note: I don't). But what I'm actually saying is that when you're designing a game you assume people are going to be using your rules. You HAVE to assume that.

Let's take fireball. In system "Heavy" Fireball is listed as an ability with very specific effects. It produces fire, has a radius, does a certain amount of damage, and a number of other things. It also does some things you don't "need" to list (though you can). It produces light (because that's what you expect fire to do) and it can ignite things (ditto). None of that takes away creativity or the ability of the GM to add fiat to it. The second part is important because if rule 0 is a thing a GM CAN take or add to the fireball as they want but that's not how you design it. They also can decide not to do that and refuse any accompanying affects that aren't what's listed on the ability.

In system "Lite" Fireball is listed as an ability that only says: Produces a small ball of fire. The table can interpret that as they want. It doesn't really matter because its a rules-lite game and the rules don't matter much. However, when you write the fireball ability in this game you expect the people playing it to, in all cases, create a ball of fire with it. You don't write the fireball ability even in this game where you expect a GM to make it a ball of ice instead.

Quote from: MGuy;565699On the flip side you cannot design a game that depends wholly or even significantly on GM fiat just to function. The best example of this is Illusions (Polymorphing is a better example but involves other issues that are beyond just this discussion). Doesn't matter what game system you're using you WANT hard limits on what illusions can do.

I want hard limits (set by the rules) on what illusions can do? Actually, I don't. I've survived fine on for years rules for illusions like these from OD&D:

QuotePhantasmal Forces: The creation of vivid illusions of nearly anything the user envisions (a projected mental image so to speak). As long as the caster concentrates on the spell, the illusion will continue unless touched by some living creature, so there is no limit on duration, per se. Damage caused to viewers of a Phantasmal Force will be real if the illusion is believed to be real. Range: 24". -- Men & Magic, p 24

I'm sure these rules are unclear and/or too open-ended for some GMs/players, but that contains all the info I need to handle the spell in game. I really don't want it to be much more specific.

QuoteIf the rules are unclear about something as open ended as illusion magic it becomes a game breaking tool.

I've never had a spell break any session (let alone any game system) I've ran.

Quote1) You get a creative player who uses silent image to be a way to bypass challenges he regularly wouldn't and shouldn't be able to bypass.

This entire concept of "challenges he regularly wouldn't and shouldn't be able to bypass" is alien to me. I design a large area of the game world, putting stuff where it fits or where a random roll puts it. This area is not designed for any particular group of characters (or even group of players) in mind. Players explore the area however they wish, encountering stuff on the map when they go to that area regardless of their level of power or the level of power of the encounter.

When they encounter something, a reaction roll is made which determines whether the encountered creatures are hostile, neutral, or friendly to the party. The players take it from there. There aren't encounters they should not be able to bypass -- especially if by "bypass" you mean encounter it but not have to fight it. I expect players to avoid fighting many of the groups on the map, but I have no idea (nor do I care) which ones will be fought, which ones will be ignored, which ones will be befriended, etc.

If the players manage to "bypass" encounters through creative use of their abilities, spells, or items, allies, or whatever, I think that's just fine and dandy.  So do the people who choose to play in my campaigns.

Quote2) You have to create on the spot rules to introduce new limits to the spell to keep it under control and hope that the limits you place don't make the spell useless (because then you short changed the player who might not have picked up the spell if he knew you were gonna gimp it) or you make rules that don't actually fix the problem or that are inconsistent and thus lead to arguments further down the line.

As a GM, I've been changing or making up rules on the fly for 35+ years with such problems only arising (very) rarely. But then, I tell potential players up front that all rules are simply guidelines for the GM. Also, since I don't have rules lawyers or min-maxers in my games, I don't have players who expect the game world to always work the way they think it will from their metagame knowledge. They realize that that nifty new spell "Silent Image" that they found on a scroll may not work exactly as they believe it will from rumors and other sources of knowledge (e.g. what the players read about it in the game rules).

Quote3) You just ban the spell.

If I did not want the spell in the game, the characters would have never found it.

QuoteDoing 1 is punishing player creativeness.

Which is why players doing that is not a problem for me. I want creative players and I have no problem with encounters being "bypassed".

QuoteDoing 2 means that you have to change the rules in order to make the game function and that's a sign of failure on the designer's end.

I do not expect what works well in the designer's/playtesters' campaigns to always work well in my campaign. My setting and my players are unique to my table. Expecting a game designer not familiar with either to create a set of rules that works perfectly as written for my table (and also work just as well for tables very different both from mine and the designer's) strikes me as expecting the impossible.

QuoteIf you do 3 its still a failure on the designer's end and you are losing a thematic and cool ability to boot.

If the spell does not fit my homebrew setting which the designer knows nothing about (and realistically can't be expected to know anything about) and/or does not work for my group's style of play (when the designer has never played with my group), I don't see how my decision to not allow that spell in my game shows any type of failure on the designer's part. And if the spell/ability does not fit my setting or the group's style of play it does not matter how "thematic and cool" others may think it is.

QuoteAll three of these issues can be avoided if the rules are, by themselves, solid enough to make it work without on GMs to spot fix the problem.

I'm sure that the issues you listed are major issues to you (and probably others who enjoy the same/similar style of play you do), but that does not mean they are seen as major issues by everyone. As you should be able to tell from my replies to each issue above, I don't see them as major issues -- in fact, I don't see them as issues at all.

Quote from: MGuy;565736You're doing that thing again where you are viewing what I'm saying as some kind of attack on your playing style. It's not. These are facts. I mentioned earlier Rules-lite systems. In rules-lite systems people playing them do not care what the rules are because they specifically want the rules out of the way. That is what you are saying you want. There is no problem with that if you like that sort of thing (side note: I don't). But what I'm actually saying is that when you're designing a game you assume people are going to be using your rules. You HAVE to assume that.
.

When you say "you cannot design a game that" you are doing more than stating preference. Perhaps there is a communication issue here but you seem to be suggesting that people can't design rules light games that leave huge sections of the rules entirely in the hands of the GM. For example you mention bluff with d20 style explanation and guidelines. I'll happily played games that do not go into such depth and leave things like gauging the TN as pure GM fiat. Also happy to have illusion spells be handled on the fly entirely by the GM. As a player this doesn't truble me, and I think deogning a game like this is erfectly fine if there is demand for it. I will also happily play games that do the opposite. I am not talking about rule zero. I am talking about stuff like illusions being vague or TNs not clearly defined. There are all kinds of rpgs out there. Some that go into great detail with these things and focus on letting players knowing what to expect and some that are not concerned at all about players being able to predict probabilities of success. There is also a huge middle ground.

My own preference if for rules light with a logical and intuitive system for setting stuff like TNs so everyone can easily arrive at the same page most of the time but without the need for extensive system mastery or looking up rules (for years I was the opposite but niw I really don't have much interest in these things). But I can see the validity of other approaches to design.

Just so we are clear McGuy. I've said what I have to say on the subject. Not going to give you another 3,000 post thread where we both make the same point over and over again.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;565587

Quote from: Benoist;565564"Narrative control". Riiight.

...
This is a completely moronic idea.

Narrative Control is clearly the DM 'domain'.  If the DM is in charge for 'building' the sandbox, they effectively have 'narrative control'.

You see the quote here, how you edited it selectively to make it look like these two segments follow each other in the original post? That's the best summary of the dishonest, selective reading and strawmen tactics you assholes have been using since you registered on the RPG Site. Well done. Keep playing that little game, douchebag. You're making friends right now.

Quote from: Benoist;565752You see the quote here, how you edited it selectively to make it look like these two segments follow each other in the original post? That's the best summary of the dishonest, selective reading and strawmen tactics you assholes have been using since you registered on the RPG Site. Well done. Keep playing that little game, douchebag. You're making friends right now.

They are?

Quote from: Marleycat;565755They are?

Sarcasm.

Quote from: Benoist;565756Sarcasm.

I know but I couldn't resist. I pretty much said my view in this thread earlier and see no need to belabor the point.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;565742My own preference if for rules light with a logical and intuitive system for setting stuff like TNs so everyone can easily arrive at the same page most of the time but without the need for extensive system mastery or looking up rules (for years I was the opposite but niw I really don't have much interest in these things). But I can see the validity of other approaches to design.

Just to be clear you somehow missed the comments I made about rules-lite systems. We certainly aren't going to be arguing if you're going to decide to not read my posts. None of your post quoting mine goes against anything I've said thus far.

Quote from: RandallS;565740I'm sure that the issues you listed are major issues to you (and probably others who enjoy the same/similar style of play you do), but that does not mean they are seen as major issues by everyone. As you should be able to tell from my replies to each issue above, I don't see them as major issues -- in fact, I don't see them as issues at all.

You need to read this real hard Randall. Once you've read this part a few times think about this. If I'm designing a game I'm designing it for multiple people who are not me. There are certain things I can think of when approaching a situation. Given more time I could think of many more. What I can't do however is think of every single way someone who is not me will approach the same situation. So I cannot then accommodate for every single approach to a given situation. When you're talking about game design you're talking about having a design goal and what things you can put into your "thing" to reach that goal. If your goal is "I want to make an ability that allows people to craft an illusion" Then you can do that by simply making an ability that says: Create Illusion. Now you may know everything you want that illusion to do and what you want it not to do but you don't design that illusion ability with the though that someone is going to say "Instead this ability just deals fire damage". You design it to be an illusion. Other things in your game that interact with that ability will be made on the assumption that the illusion ability indeed produces an illusion. Now you may think to yourself that you want the illusion to be messed up if something comes into contact with it. That is a limitation and if you want make rules that interact with that limitation then you're going to write rules with the assumption that that limitation is in place. Yes, someone can come along and take that limitation out as it is their choice to do so at their table but you didn't design that ability, nor the other things in your game that interact with that ability to do that. Why? Because you cannot predict everyway someone will handle your stuff so you design your stuff with the assumption that the stuff you make is in place. That illusion ability you make, with all its limitations in place would naturally be made to "work" as you intended. If someone decides "this illusion ability just does fire damage and nothing else" then the rest of your system that interacts with that ability on that assumption will most likely not work the same.

Quote from: MGuy;565769Just to be clear you somehow missed the comments I made about rules-lite systems. We certainly aren't going to be arguing if you're going to decide to not read my posts. None of your post quoting mine goes against anything I've said thus far.

Then I am not sure what your trying to say. And this seems to be a recurring problem when you and I engage in discussion. I got that you weren't opposed to rules light, but you laid out some expectations about fiat that I think many rules light games break. Maybe if you were more specific because yiu may be using GM fiat to mean something other than what many of the posters here have in mind.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;565742When you say "you cannot design a game that" you are doing more than stating preference. Perhaps there is a communication issue here....

I'm beginning to thing that what MGuy really means when he says "you cannot design a game that...." is something like "You cannot design a rules complete game that would get my seal of approval that...."

He seems to make an exception for "rules lite" games but what is rules lite is subjective and varies with time.  For example, OD&D would be considered a rules light game today, but it was considered rules heavy by many in the 1970s.