[ATTACH=CONFIG]165[/ATTACH]

It's really most sincerely dead ...

Quote from: Ravenswing;903137[ATTACH=CONFIG]165[/ATTACH]

It's really most sincerely dead ...

He's lifting his head up.

It's a trick...get an axe.

Quote from: Madprofessor;903093I don't get why some people want to get sauce by squeezing the pizza, just like I don't get people who think purpose of playing an rpg is the rules that are used to play it.

I think this is a strawman. No one is saying that the purpose of playing a RPG are the rules. They say rules are an indispensable part of playing a RPG, when someone is coming around again who has a problem with rules.

Quote from: Maarzan;903171I think this is a strawman. No one is saying that the purpose of playing a RPG are the rules. They say rules are an indispensable part of playing a RPG, when someone is coming around again who has a problem with rules.

I think you have that backwards. No one is talking about running a campaign without rules. However, many pages back, someone did try to suggest rules for their own sake is a counterexample to the idea that it's about the campaign not the rules.

Quote from: AsenRG;888412Wrong, some people do prefer rules-heavy just because engaging the rules is fun to them.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;888753The rules can very well be there for their own sake, and the reason players play, often without realizing it. And huge chunks of gamer culture are built directly on the foundation of rules as artifacts, such as the d20, which has become a defining symbol.

Of course, that idea even fails as a counterexample because if the rules and the purpose are one, you never get a divergence between rules and purpose in the first place. Nor is it possible to have a divergence between rules and purpose if you have no rules. Because that's really what's at the heart of the thread--what do you do when rules and the campaign diverge. Neither of the extreme cases even address the topic at all. But only one of the extremes is a straw man. The other was actually forwarded as a serious way of playing.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;902749Are you saying that reading the rules keeps new players away?

A game where a player has to read the rules to play the game keeps some players away.

Quote from: estar;902806A emphasis on RPG as a mean of running tabletop campaigns benefits everybody regardless of their preferred ruleset.

No. Just no.

No matter how lovely your campaign may be or how much you emphasize running it, if you are using a ruleset I don’t want, I won’t enjoy playing. (So I won’t play.) Therefore your campaign emphasis benefits me not one jot. On the other hand, if you are using a ruleset that I like, but your campaign sucks rocks, I won’t enjoy playing. Rules and campaign are necessary conditions to enjoyment. Neither is a sufficient condition.

However, rules are a much easier condition to assess than is the campaign. Thus many people first focus on satisfying the easier to assess of two necessary conditions before trying to investigate the more difficult to assess condition.

Quote from: Bren;903236No matter how lovely your campaign may be or how much you emphasize running it, if you are using a ruleset I don’t want, I won’t enjoy playing. (So I won’t play.)

I can't think of any rules system I flat out refuse to play (vs. run, which is a different story)... especially if I already know and like the other players and have reason to believe the campaign will be decent.
Given a system I love (say CoC), I still need people I can get along with and for the actual play not to suck.

Quote from: Simlasa;903240I can't think of any rules system I flat out refuse to play (vs. run, which is a different story)

How about F.A.T.A.L. or perhaps V.T.N.L. ? :cool:

Quote from: Bren;903236Rules and campaign are necessary conditions to enjoyment. Neither is a sufficient condition.

However, rules are a much easier condition to assess than is the campaign. Thus many people first focus on satisfying the easier to assess of two necessary conditions before trying to investigate the more difficult to assess condition.

This reminds me of the joke about the economist who loses his watch while walking down the street. As he's looking around for it, a stranger comes up to him and asks what he's doing. The economists explains that he's looking for his watch that he lost, so the stranger, offering to help, asks "Well, whereabouts did you lose it?" And the economist points to the other side of the street. Puzzled, the stranger asks, "Then why are you looking for it over here?" The economist replies, "Because the light is better over here."

He's not going to see the watch in the dark. He's also not going to see the watch unless it's where he's looking. He needs light, and he needs to look in the right place. Both are necessary conditions. Neither are sufficient. That said, it's not necessarily the case that he needs to see the watch in order to find it, nor is it the case that just because there is less light that there is zero light. If he searched the dark side of the street, there's at least some chance he'd find the watch. It might be a shot in the dark, but it's still something. Checking the more "easily assessed" side of the street, however, is inherently fruitless.

I have no doubts that what you say here is true. I've observed this myself of many gamers. It's fairly common that they out-think themselves, reasoning themselves directly into futility. And this observation is a great first step. The second step is recognizing the futility trap. The third step is actually changing yourself so you no longer do this sort of thing. For it is equally fruitless to try to cater to gamers caught in this trap.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;888168RPGs are mostly Mother May I games where one of the players badly presents a story of some kind to the other players who are just there because they are not socially capable of being in any other groups.

While that may be your excuse, it certainly does not apply to everyone. I know, why don't you make another boring as shit YouTube video about it!

Quote from: JesterRaiin;903242How about F.A.T.A.L. or perhaps V.T.N.L. ? :cool:

I don't really know enough about those to say I wouldn't... IF people I really liked wanted to put one of them to a purpose that sounded fun.

Quote from: Simlasa;903264I don't really know enough about those to say I wouldn't... IF people I really liked wanted to put one of them to a purpose that sounded fun.

Well, it's as fun as esophagogastroduodenoscopy - finding it enjoyable pretty much defines you as "weird" and not in a good sense.

Quote from: Lunamancer;903257This reminds me of the joke ….

Essays that start with "This reminds me of a joke..." seldom end in a salient point.

QuoteHe's not going to see the watch in the dark. He's also not going to see the watch unless it's where he's looking. He needs light, and he needs to look in the right place. Both are necessary conditions.

Except for the one that isn’t actually a necessary condition. That would be the false condition that makes the joke funny.

QuoteChecking the more "easily assessed" side of the street, however, is inherently fruitless.

Yes, checking where the watch cannot be is inherently fruitless. Doing so when one has a reasonable assurance that the watch can’t be there is inherently dumb. Of course that has nothing to do with an examination of system or campaign or anything else in my post. But it is a sort of funny joke about social scientists. I know one about a mathematician, a physicist, and an engineer. I also know one about a traveling salesman, but that one is not funny.

There isn’t any trap in addressing the easier to identify condition first. It’s just efficient. The easy to identify condition is often the system, but it might be campaign, it might even be people. Just as there are systems that I like a lot and ones that I don’t want to play at all, there are campaigns that I’ve enjoyed a lot and campaigns that I don’t want to play, and there are people I enjoy playing with and people I don’t want to play with at all. Life is far too short to waste my scarce free time doing things I don’t enjoy.

Quote from: Simlasa;903240I can't think of any rules system I flat out refuse to play.

1. I can.

2. You already assessed the easier step – system. This makes you an example, not a refutation, of what I described.


I do agree with you that it’s reasonable to be more particular about which systems one is willing to run than what one is willing to play. But that is equally true for what campaigns one is willing to run vs. what campaigns one is willing to play.

Quote from: JesterRaiin;903273Well, it's as fun as esophagogastroduodenoscopy - finding it enjoyable pretty much defines you as "weird" and not in a good sense.

They're fun if you're the one operating the endoscope. Decent moneymaker too.

Quote from: Bren;9032772. You already assessed the easier step – system. This makes you an example, not a refutation, of what I described.

I wasn't aware I was trying to refute anything... just comparing my reactions to game systems to yours.
Like, I certainly know guys who either refuse to play certain systems (GURPS and BRP are two I run into frequently) or else they'll play, reluctantly... but whine and bitch the whole time to where it's worse than if they'd just said, "no!" to begin with. Most of these guys are long-time 'gamers' who theorize and nitpick everything ad nauseum.
Meanwhile, I think I'm like a number of people who can just play and not sweat the little stuff quite so much... and save our criticism for other Players/GMs.
Not to say that I have NO preferences regarding system... I surely do... I didn't go looking for a Pathfinder game to play in... it wasn't even on my list... but it was a group near my house, playing regularly, with a group of guys I seem to get along with (despite LARGE differences outside of game stuff). And really, they way they play Pathfinder, it usually feels like some OSR sandbox.

QuoteI do agree with you that it’s reasonable to be more particular about which systems one is willing to run than what one is willing to play. But that is equally true for what campaigns one is willing to run vs. what campaigns one is willing to play.

It makes sense... as a GM you're going to be required to have an more enthusiasm and interest than the average Player... so anything that's working against that is going to be much more telling.

Quote from: Simlasa;903280I wasn't aware I was trying to refute anything... just comparing my reactions to game systems to yours.

Fair point. I may have been overly defensive rather than being open to sharing and comparing.

I'm one of those people who wants (needs?) to read the rules for games I play. Which is just one more reason that voluminous, cumbersome games like Pathfinder end up on my list of systems to avoid playing.