I heard this term on the forum, but I have no idea what it means.
It comes from a troll forum, not this one, but basically means "to play without any actual rules".
It's a somewhat derogatory term, but, bottom line, there will be times in a RPG where there's nothing in the rulebook that tells the GM/players how to handle it. So, they MTP (Magical Tea Party) it, making it up as they go along.
Thing is if you're paying actual money for a game, and you're playing MTP more often than not, the question arises: why pay for the rules?
It's a term quite most often used by people whenever the GM needs to make a ruling for anything. Ever. These people feel like every possible scenario must be addressed in the rules, and the GM shouldn't be allowed to make a ruling at any time, or they aren't playing a "real" game, and are playing MTP instead. it is often paired with "mother-may-I".
It's really nothing more than a passive aggressive way to tell someone that they are having badwrong fun playing RPGs.
Go ask Alice, I think she'll know.
So....
Its not when the adventuring party suddenly decides to protest the King's heavy taxes with launched fireballs and 'magic missile'?
- Ed C.
I can see Greyhawk from here!
JG
It is another way of saying "my gaming is better than yours" as many others you will find in this or other sites.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;670164It's a term quite most often used by people whenever the GM needs to make a ruling for anything. Ever. These people feel like every possible scenario must be addressed in the rules, and the GM shouldn't be allowed to make a ruling at any time, or they aren't playing a "real" game, and are playing MTP instead. it is often paired with "mother-may-I".
So it's another derogatory term for Free Kriegspiel.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;670164It's a term quite most often used by people whenever the GM needs to make a ruling for anything. Ever. These people feel like every possible scenario must be addressed in the rules, and the GM shouldn't be allowed to make a ruling at any time, or they aren't playing a "real" game, and are playing MTP instead. it is often paired with "mother-may-I".
It's really nothing more than a passive aggressive way to tell someone that they are having badwrong fun playing RPGs.
I would say it is based on about certain personality types having control issues.
The "You are playing rpgs wrong" is just self justification after the fact.
And I apologize if this offends anyone; That is not my intent, just stating my opinion.
See also the antonym - Player Entitlement
Quote from: Imperator;670196It is another way of saying "my gaming is better than yours" as many others you will find in this or other sites.
Yep. People whipping out their e-peens as if people are impressed by that sort of thing.
Well, my game is better than yours, for the note.
That out of the way - it's an attack against a GM who dares to provide rulings rather than stick to the Holy Writ of a mechanic.
On the subject, my favourite criticism was "Making houserules is like chiselling in shit".
To be fair, it is useful to have labels to use as shorthand for concepts.
I just wish they didn't all devolve into pejoratives.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;670164It's a term quite most often used by people whenever the GM needs to make a ruling for anything. Ever. These people feel like every possible scenario must be addressed in the rules, and the GM shouldn't be allowed to make a ruling at any time, or they aren't playing a "real" game, and are playing MTP instead. it is often paired with "mother-may-I".
It's really nothing more than a passive aggressive way to tell someone that they are having badwrong fun playing RPGs.
No, they're right.
I've had far too many bullshitter faux-novellist GMs who want to railroad me into their red dragon inn made up BS. A good example was a friend of mine whose GM said she couldn't use sneak attack in 3.5, even though she
fulfilled all the rules conditions to get a sneak attack, because he felt it was "too powerful and didn't feel right."
I'm down for GMs having their appropriate authority, but if I want free form gaming, I'll go to a Mind's Eye Theatre LARP or take an improv class.
Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;670422No, they're right.
.
This implies that you're disagreeing with me, but then you go on to say something that had nothing to do with what I actually said.
Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;670422No, they're right.
I've had far too many bullshitter faux-novellist GMs who want to railroad me into their red dragon inn made up BS. A good example was a friend of mine whose GM said she couldn't use sneak attack in 3.5, even though she fulfilled all the rules conditions to get a sneak attack, because he felt it was "too powerful and didn't feel right."
I'm down for GMs having their appropriate authority, but if I want free form gaming, I'll go to a Mind's Eye Theatre LARP or take an improv class.
I agree it sucks when a GM makes an anal retentive lame ass call.
However, my problem with rules superseding the gm is that if there was a good reason a sneak attack would not make sense, it's the gm's job to override the rules.
In my opinion.
For me, I don't really care how perfect a gm is, if they run a fun game.
Thankfully, I have only encountered a small number of genuinely bad gm's over the years.
About five over 30+years of gaming.
Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;670422A good example was a friend of mine whose GM said she couldn't use sneak attack in 3.5, even though she fulfilled all the rules conditions to get a sneak attack, because he felt it was "too powerful and didn't feel right."
Didn't you start a thread a while back whining about this and we all laughed and said, "No, actually she didn't fulfill the requirements and it WAS dumb and didn't feel right?"
Because I'm not sure you want to bring that up again.
EDIT: From that thread:
Quote from: Kaiu KeiichiSo, shit, I feel like a dork. I think the guy was right.
Aside from Pundit's material (lawncrapping, etc), has this forum produced any memes as useful or widespread as mtp?
Useful? Ha, that's up for debate.
Quote from: Piestrio;670429EDIT: From that thread:
P, your KK quote goes back to an earlier post in this thread, not the "Dumbest shit GMs have decreed" where KK fucked the poodle.
So, for the sake of sourcing correctly, here's the quote again with the correct link.
Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;616043So, shit, I feel like a dork. I think the guy was right.
Quote from: FASERIP;670465Aside from Pundit's material (lawncrapping, etc), has this forum produced any memes as useful or widespread as mtp?
Production of "memes" (e.g. lolcats) is not a good in itself. They are generally infantile.
Quote from: FASERIP;670465Aside from Pundit's material (lawncrapping, etc), has this forum produced any memes as useful or widespread as mtp?
Why should it?
There is nothing good or honorable about generating bullshit catchphrases and 'memes'.
Those just get overused by people to lazy to think for themselves and come up with their own damn ideas.
- Ed C.
Quote from: Koltar;670526Why should it?
There is nothing good or honorable about generating bullshit catchphrases and 'memes'.
Those just get overused by people to lazy to think for themselves and come up with their own damn ideas.
- Ed C.
And almost inevitably mutate/get watered down until their essentially useless because almost everyone has their own definition.
So Pundit's the only poster here who's generated ideas that resonated with people?
That's my take away from this thread so far.
People at TGD know what MTP means because it represents a playstyle they dislike. People here usually know what it means as well, because there's a chafing grain of truth in that satirical phrase.
There's nothing wrong with ridicule.
Quote from: FASERIP;670536So Pundit's the only poster here who's generated ideas that resonated with people?
That's my take away from this thread so far.
People at TGD know what MTP means because it represents a playstyle they dislike. People here usually know what it means as well, because there's a chafing grain of truth in that satirical phrase.
There's nothing wrong with ridicule.
Put the 3rd grade rhetoric away please.
Quote from: Piestrio;670539Put the 3rd grade rhetoric away please.
If 3rd graders wrote that well, this forum would've generated some memorable phrases.
Instead we're discussing TGD rhetoric.
I give you a 2 out of 10, only because it's so obvious.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;670542I give you a 2 out of 10, only because it's so obvious.
Who you rating? Me or the TBP refugee?
Quote from: Killfuck Soulshitter;670504Production of "memes" (e.g. lolcats) is not a good in itself. They are generally infantile.
No. Those who parrot them are what's infantile.
Quote from: FASERIP;670536So Pundit's the only poster here who's generated ideas that resonated with people?
Yes, you're very clever, and your have an enourmouse penis. Now go ask mummy for a cookie and some milk before bedtime.
Quote from: FASERIP;670540If 3rd graders wrote that well, this forum would've generated some memorable phrases.
You're not that clever, troll boy. And I speak as an expert in trolling.
Quote from: taustin;670558You're not that clever, troll boy. And I speak as an expert in trolling.
No brag, just fact.
But since you lazy shitheads can't make a counterargument, I'll provide some evidence towards one.
1. "Tyranny of Fun" --- fairly sure this originated here with Melan, iirc. Had some traction with the 4e people.
2. "Dissociated mechanics" --- did not originate here, but I think Justin's presence helped to popularize and 'associate' it with this place.
A troll that has to argue with himself is an especially sad troll.
Well, yeah, there's a reason why I identified the forum where it came from as such.
Quote from: FASERIP;670465Aside from Pundit's material (lawncrapping, etc), has this forum produced any memes as useful or widespread as mtp?
Lots of people are in the market for a new way to say, "my gaming preferences are superior."
The observation that some term serves that market well doesn't make it a standard to aspire to.
Cheers,
-E.
Quote from: taustin;670555No. Those who parrot them are what's infantile.
Parroting is what makes a meme a meme, though. Otherwise they're just clever jokes or bumper stickers ( or the basis for a song if your country music "artist")
magical tea party is how 4vengers say "wah your game touched my no-no spot"
Quote from: thedungeondelver;670667magical tea party is how 4vengers say "wah I had a DM who touched my no-no spot and wouldn't let me play my My Little Pony as a character"
fixed it for you. ;)
MTP is pretty much the one thing that differentiates between a tabletop RPG and a board game. I love board games, but they can only take you so far -- as soon as you go off the rails, you're into MTP territory.
Personally, I think rules should only be present when they are necessary to prevent confusion, or when they add to the experience (and yes, that is a horribly wishy washy and subjective thing to say -- it's meant to be, as there is no one system that fits all). I saw someone on TGD quote Frank Trollman, saying that MTP is the one part of the game you get for free (as in no work by the author, rather than zero cost), so if you are going to add a rule, then it had better improve the game, and justify its existence. He normally seems to dislike MTP, so maybe I'm quoting out of context, but I like that bit so I'm mentioning it.
And that's why I think MTP is actually a good thing.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;670667magical tea party is how 4vengers say "wah your game touched my no-no spot"
I've honestly never heard MTP used seriously outside of The Gaming Den, who are all stridently anti-4th Edition.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;670667magical tea party is how 4vengers say "wah your game touched my no-no spot"
I've honestly never heard MTP used seriously outside of The Gaming Den, who are all stridently anti-4th Edition.
Frank Trollman is a proof that maths don't make an RPG.
Quote from: Rincewind1;670683Frank Trollman is a proof that maths don't make an RPG.
The name sounds familiar. Did he author anything a person would remember?
Quote from: FASERIP;670599No brag, just fact.
Wank, wank, wank. Don't try to troll the master, kiddo. You haven't got what it takes.
Keep this up, and I'll have you arguing with Pee Wee Herman quotes by tomorrow.
Quote from: TristramEvans;670664Parroting is what makes a meme a meme, though. Otherwise they're just clever jokes or bumper stickers
Hence, the comment about the users thereof being infantile.
Quote from: TristramEvans;670664( or the basis for a song if your country music "artist")
Country & Western: music to commit suicide by. Yeah, I've heard 'em all. At least that was a slightly clever troll.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;670667magical tea party is how 4vengers say "wah your game touched my no-no spot"
This.
Quote from: Rincewind1;670683Frank Trollman is a proof that maths don't make an RPG.
And a zulu inspired orc miniature does not racism make.
Can't forget that gem.
Quote from: Rincewind1;670683Frank Trollman is a proof that maths don't make an RPG.
He's good at maths, but he's not infallible. He and I strongly disagree on the issue of d%. I want to roll under my score, and pretty much don't care about margin of success (GM can assign a bonus/penalty prior to rolling, crit if you pass and roll is divisible by 10 is nice and quick), he wants to spend his evening adding big numbers and seeing how much they pass 100. I love maths, but I don't let it get in the way of a good time.
The last time I said anything good about MTP on TGD, they said "No one here cares about that time you had fun playing MTP".
Quote from: jeff37923;670713And a zulu inspired orc miniature does not racism make.
Can't forget that gem.
I can't quite remember if I was around for that one but yes, I do remember it. Anyone remembers his "WoD with proper maths"?
It evokes the idea that, without rules, there's no possible way we could get along. That would be magical, imaginary. Impossible. At least, not in an activity that involves conflicting goals (e.g. between a player who wants his character to climb a wall, and the GM who has decided that the wall is probably too high, or with another player who wants his character to climb up first).
Therefore, freeform must mean there are no conflicting goals, we're just happily playing together. A tea party!
Eric Berne wrote about an interesting concept in the sixties, the "time structuring problem." He argued that totally unstructured interactions were stressful, and that conversational rituals and pastimes have arisen to deal with that (e.g. talking about the weather). I'm sure this is one of the attractions of RPGs - lovers of fantasy (or whatever) can spend long hours together, getting the benefits of intense social interaction (more intense than, say, golf, which has a weather-like repetition of 'nice shot' and so on) while facing minimal uncertainty about the procedures of interaction.
Without the 'rules', when there's conflict relating to what happens in the game, it's just Geoff and Craig having an argument. So freeform play looks impossibly harmonious to some people.
The strict role definitions of the Immersion/Emulation play style strikes me as serving the same function: it gives everyone an absolutely clear understanding of who is responsible for what. Any hint of collaboration or reduction of GM power dilutes this clarity. Geoff and Steve start 'collaborating', but disagree - now the game is on hold while they work it out (or others chime in), or ultimately fail to work it out.
Golf at Hogwarts?
Oh, tea, not tee ...
WTF is a magic tea party? WTF is a TGD. Why do I care. Who is this trolling troll and his wankfest over bullshit that is pretty much meaningless.
Madhatter's tea party is something I can get behind though.
So if I understand this correctly, 'magic tea party' is basically non-functioning manchildren's term for adults capable of getting along without a gamebook to institute a "social contract" for them?
Quote from: TristramEvans;670917So if I understand this correctly, 'magic tea party' is basically non-functioning manchildren's term for adults capable of getting along without a gamebook to institute a "social contract" for them?
That would be the scientific description, yes.
Quote from: TristramEvans;670917So if I understand this correctly, 'magic tea party' is basically non-functioning manchildren's term for adults capable of getting along without a gamebook to institute a "social contract" for them?
Pretty much.
Quote from: TristramEvans;670917So if I understand this correctly, 'magic tea party' is basically non-functioning manchildren's term for adults capable of getting along without a gamebook to institute a "social contract" for them?
A less harsh wording might be 'People that are happier with rules than without rules'
Another harsh wording could also be "How can I break the system with my uber build and strategies if the gm is not forced by the rules to only use level appropriate challenges I can easily defeat?"
I have met a handful of gamers that feel strongly about rules constraining the gm...period...absolute rules conformity.
I don't personally think the gm should be constrained, but tastes will vary.
A gm that does wacky crazy annoying !@&#$ will not have players for long.
So I don't see a problem with letting a gm do whatever they please.
Quote from: Bill;670941Another harsh wording could also be "How can I break the system with my uber build and strategies if the gm is not forced by the rules to only use level appropriate challenges I can easily defeat?"
I don't get where all this level appropriate challenge nonsense comes from -- nowhere in any of the books does it say "
thou shalt only deliver level appropriate challenges to thy players". I think it's intended just as a guideline to judge how difficult the encounter is.
Or is the GM putting ancient red dragons in the cave behind the sign marked "
Wotchout, anchient redde dragone liveth yonder" just MTP?
MTP (Magical Tea Party) is a short-hand invented by The Gaming Den (http://www.tgdmb.com/) to describe a situation where there are no 'rules' to adjudicate the situation. While it is generally disliked, it's not really a pejorative term - most people admit that there will be situations that the rules don't cover - but that those situations should tend to be based on uncommon situations. Things like combat and exploration and social interaction are expected to be common in a game like Dungeons and Dragons, and therefore we'd expect rules for them.
Closely related to MTP is the term 'suck the DMs cock'. That's the pejorative.
The idea is that if you can get the DM to agree that your action is reasonable (because there are no rules) you can succeed by gaining favor. If you want to 'win', you can suck the DMs cock and he'll agree that whatever you suggest is 'reasonable'.
There have been some discussions here where people talk about 'tracking a dragon to his lair' despite not having any tracking skills, the dragon flying, etc. The Den prefers real skills written on a character sheet so you don't have to convince the DM that 'you can totally track'.
Some people here think that if the rules don't say you CAN'T, then you can try it. Others prefer to have rules that say what you can do or how it works if you try something.
I'll believe its not used at the Gaming Den perjoratively in the same way I believea 4e fan isn't being dismissive when he talks about 'legacy mechanics' ' or 'people only play osr games because of nostalgia'. And for my next impossible thing before breakfast I'll believe thay t I don't mean it negatively when I say 'character optimization is just a polite way of saying min-maxing'.
Yeah, Magic Tea Party certainly doesn't sound like a neutral term. The whole "sucking gm c**k" business frankly says more about people invoking the phrase than anything else.
Just because a lot of people that talk about it don't like it doesn't mean that the term is terribly negative.
It is pretty descriptive.
In 'real' magical tea party, the little girl hosting tells the 'guests' what is happening. As long as everyone is having fun, it's not a bad thing - but it is a thing.
In an RPG, some people like that. Storytellers, in particular, like 'magic tea party'.
Other people prefer a more rules-oriented approach.
What is strange is that people here are against 'story-games' because they give PCs 'narrative control' in some form; they're against 'rules-based games' because they think you should 'play the game, not the rules'. That means they like the GM to describe what's happening and make 'reasonable decisions' without reference to rules.
So they like 'Magic Tea Party'. For some reason, they don't like that description for their preferred gaming style. I don't know why they'd be sensitive about it; it's a metaphor, but not a particularly insulting one.
Yeah. Totally not pejorative.
(http://toddanthonydirect.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341cb01f53ef0120a89e9b43970b-800wi)
Quote from: deadDMwalking;671032So they like 'Magic Tea Party'. For some reason, they don't like that description for their preferred gaming style. I don't know why they'd be sensitive about it; it's a metaphor, but not a particularly insulting one.
You are a smart poster. I am confident you understand fully why this would be perceived as an insult, and why it is an insult.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;671032Just because a lot of people that talk about it don't like it doesn't mean that the term is terribly negative.
It is pretty descriptive.
In 'real' magical tea party, the little girl hosting tells the 'guests' what is happening. As long as everyone is having fun, it's not a bad thing - but it is a thing.
In an RPG, some people like that. Storytellers, in particular, like 'magic tea party'.
Other people prefer a more rules-oriented approach.
What is strange is that people here are against 'story-games' because they give PCs 'narrative control' in some form; they're against 'rules-based games' because they think you should 'play the game, not the rules'. That means they like the GM to describe what's happening and make 'reasonable decisions' without reference to rules.
So they like 'Magic Tea Party'. For some reason, they don't like that description for their preferred gaming style. I don't know why they'd be sensitive about it; it's a metaphor, but not a particularly insulting one.
There may not be anything inherently insulting about the words, but delivery matters. There isn't a phrase in the english language (or any other, I would imagine) that can't be turned in to an insult.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;671019MTP (Magical Tea Party) is a short-hand invented by The Gaming Den (http://www.tgdmb.com/) to describe a situation where there are no 'rules' to adjudicate the situation. While it is generally disliked, it's not really a pejorative term - most people admit that there will be situations that the rules don't cover - but that those situations should tend to be based on uncommon situations. Things like combat and exploration and social interaction are expected to be common in a game like Dungeons and Dragons, and therefore we'd expect rules for them.
Closely related to MTP is the term 'suck the DMs cock'. That's the pejorative.
The idea is that if you can get the DM to agree that your action is reasonable (because there are no rules) you can succeed by gaining favor. If you want to 'win', you can suck the DMs cock and he'll agree that whatever you suggest is 'reasonable'.
I don't know anything about that website, but what you have described does not sound like the way adults socialize and discuss things.
I can have discussions with my boss without metaphorically sucking her vagina, and there certainly are not rules governing real life.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;671032In an RPG, some people like that. Storytellers, in particular, like 'magic tea party'.
Other people prefer a more rules-oriented approach.
What is strange is that people here are against 'story-games' because they give PCs 'narrative control' in some form; they're against 'rules-based games' because they think you should 'play the game, not the rules'. That means they like the GM to describe what's happening and make 'reasonable decisions' without reference to rules.
So they like 'Magic Tea Party'. .
Let me point out your mistake. Coming up with rulings instead of referencing a hard rule is not storytelling like you think it is. In rulings not rules, the DM is making reasonable decisions on what the PCs are doing. The DMs are not "telling a story" to the players. In rulings vs rules, the DM is a referee, not a storyteller. When you learn that difference, you won't make comments like the above.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;671032So they like 'Magic Tea Party'. For some reason, they don't like that description for their preferred gaming style. I don't know why they'd be sensitive about it; it's a metaphor, but not a particularly insulting one.
This is awesome. One of the best parts of GNS theory was when theory people would tell you that calling your favorite game "incoherent" wasn't pejorative -- just descriptive!
And if you found it insulting, you were projecting! Or overly sensitive.
It was great -- obvious bullshit. Like your statement here.
If a lot of people fondly prefer to their preferred play style as "Magical Tea Party," then I'd be willing to consider what you're saying here.
As it is, it looks clearly dismissive and belittling -- an insult. Not as bad as sucking the DM's dick, but still unambiguously negative.
Cheers,
-E.
Quote from: Old Geezer;670173Go ask Alice, I think she'll know.
Ok, this made me giggle.
Quote from: Old One Eye;670689The name sounds familiar. Did he author anything a person would remember?
Not anything a casual gamer that actually runs and plays games cares about it seems. Dude forgets games aren't a probability exercise though solid math is always helpful in making a game engine run nice. Big difference.
Quote from: spaceLem;671001I don't get where all this level appropriate challenge nonsense comes from -- nowhere in any of the books does it say "thou shalt only deliver level appropriate challenges to thy players". I think it's intended just as a guideline to judge how difficult the encounter is.
Or is the GM putting ancient red dragons in the cave behind the sign marked "Wotchout, anchient redde dragone liveth yonder" just MTP?
In fact yes I believe so. This all came about because Dnd became massively popular with 12-13 year old geek boys with inferiority complexes in the 1980's in particular it's a backlash against socially inept players and GM's. Notice how females tend to play White Wolf games more than others? Those games are the epitome of MTP, especially my preference Mage. To even play that game there is an unspoken social contract no rules can cover, not even MtAw comes close to it.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;671046Let me point out your mistake. Coming up with rulings instead of referencing a hard rule is not storytelling like you think it is. In rulings not rules, the DM is making reasonable decisions on what the PCs are doing. The DMs are not "telling a story" to the players. In rulings vs rules, the DM is a referee, not a storyteller. When you learn that difference, you won't make comments like the above.
Yeah, pretty much this. Dead on.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;671022Yeah, Magic Tea Party certainly doesn't sound like a neutral term. The whole "sucking gm c**k" business frankly says more about people invoking the phrase than anything else.
OK, so there are no rules, but there are safewords.
JG
Quote from: James Gillen;671112OK, so there are no rules, but there are safewords.
JG
They can say what the like. There are plenty of strong arguments for using rules in a game, but when those arguments are reduced to "magic tea party" or performing sexual favors for the GM, I find it harder to take the people making them seriously. The former is just an insult, so easy enough to ignore, but the latter suggests the maturity level of a twelve year old. The same for terms like 4vengers or accusing people who like rules of having aspergers. I usually tune folks out these days when they engage in that kind of rhetoric (even if I agree with their basic point). To me it just illustrates the person isn't interested in hearing the alternative point of view at all or having an actual discussion.
A Kansas-based RPG publisher just announced that their house system powering all eventual releases would be called "Magical Tea Party".
(All the cool names for game systems were already taken; "d20 System", "d6 System", "Basic Role Play". "Storyteller", "Silhouette", "ICON", "Fuzion", etc.).
Apparently it is an ultra simulatoric d% system.
Their first game using MTP will be Wonderland.
People can take insult for whatever reason they want. Yes, when most people on the Gaming Den talk about Magical Tea Party, it's not high praise. While it has a place, it is almost universally seen as a failure in the system.
Lord Mistborn pulled a quote from Frank that may express the Den's View of it best:
Quote from: FrankTrollmanMTP is usually used in the context of "that's just MTP". Magical Teaparty is the first RPG element. It's free. And we can use it to mind caulk anything. That's not revolutionary, and the results aren't predictable.
So when someone says they have a cool system of handling something, and that "system" is MTP, it would not be unusual at all for someone on the Den to say "That's just MTP." And even though tone doesn't carry over text on the interwebs terribly well, I want to assure you that the sentence would be absolutely dripping with scorn. But it wouldn't be dismissive and contemptuous because MTP is inherently bad, it would be such because the delivered product would be literally the equal of what a five year old could do.
If a five year old does a stick figure in crayon, it is charming and goes on the fridge. If a grown man does one and asks why I don't want it on my fridge, I don't think that needs a reasoned response. It deserves a dismissive and cruel comment. And I am sure that it would get one.
But what MTP is, fundamentally, is worse than every single other rule in your game. At least, it fucking better be. Because MTP is free and takes up zero space. So absolutely any rule you write that isn't better than MTP is something you should cut in editing. Which doesn't mean MTP is "bad" or that it doesn't have a place. It just means that every single rule you include in your game is supposed to be better than MTP.
-Frank
Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;671151A Kansas-based RPG publisher just announced that their house system powering all eventual releases would be called "Magical Tea Party".
(All the cool names for game systems were already taken; "d20 System", "d6 System", "Basic Role Play". "Storyteller", "Silhouette", "ICON", "Fuzion", etc.).
Apparently it is an ultra simulatoric d% system.
Their first game using MTP will be Wonderland.
You know, I'd probably buy a
Wondaland game, set in the hip-hop android metropolis of Janelle Monáe's songs.
Anyway, MTP. Yeah. The more rules you have to make up to play your game, relative to the ones you bought, the less use the rules you bought actually were. When it gets to certain point, you have to ask yourself, "did I really need to buy that rulebook? Could we have had more fun with a different game? Were we really playing the game that we bought?".
And that's totally cool, there's nothing wrong with playing or not playing pretty much any RPG. But the rules you buy should give you the guidance you need at the table, or they're not doing their job and you should move to something else.
Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;671151A Kansas-based RPG publisher just announced that their house system powering all eventual releases would be called "Magical Tea Party".
(All the cool names for game systems were already taken; "d20 System", "d6 System", "Basic Role Play". "Storyteller", "Silhouette", "ICON", "Fuzion", etc.).
Apparently it is an ultra simulatoric d% system.
Their first game using MTP will be Wonderland.
I've always wanted to write a game "Bad Wrong Fun" (or "Badwrongfun"), a mish-mash of both sides of the most hotly contested RPG rules.
I like the name. But, unsurprisingly, it just wasn't that fun to write.
//Panjumanju
Quote from: deadDMwalking;671159People can take insult for whatever reason they want. Yes, when most people on the Gaming Den talk about Magical Tea Party, it's not high praise. While it has a place, it is almost universally seen as a failure in the system.
Lord Mistborn pulled a quote from Frank that may express the Den's View of it best:
The fact that MTP is used in a dismissive, if not insulting manner is evidence of a fundamental problem with this assessment.
If it is such a thing that any 5 year old can do, and shouldn't require any space in a game book then why are there so many DMs who suck so bad at it, that it has become a euphemesim for sucking the DMs cock? After all,
anyone can sing, but there are those who are more pleasant to listen to than others.
While anyone may be able to MTP, not everyone can make rulings fairly and consistently. Making rulings is a skill that is developed like any other. It is part of a good DMs skillset. If there are no situations in a game that rules do not fully cover then a human DM isn't needed in the first place. The whole point of tabletop rpgs is the ability to go beyond the pre-programmed code a computer game provides.
Developing such skills takes time and involves some trial and error. A group that communicates openly and doesn't treat the game like such serious business is important to the development of such skills.
That is kind of what has been missing IMHO in the latest generation of gamers and the reason that MTP play has sucked, and thus been mistakenly identified as the
cause of bad games rather than the result of the inability of DMs to develop proper skills.
Quote from: spaceLem;671001I don't get where all this level appropriate challenge nonsense comes from -- nowhere in any of the books does it say "thou shalt only deliver level appropriate challenges to thy players". I think it's intended just as a guideline to judge how difficult the encounter is.
Or is the GM putting ancient red dragons in the cave behind the sign marked "Wotchout, anchient redde dragone liveth yonder" just MTP?
You are right in my opinion, but many people interpret, innocently or otherwise, the existance of 'challenge ratings' to be constraints on the gm.
I have observed players that seem to expect the gm to only use 'level appropriate' challenges. Their real reason is so their uber build will retain its advantage over a gm afraid to use stronger challenges. Its a way of accusing a gm of 'cheating'
After all, what good is an uber build if the enemies are also that powerful?
Quote from: deadDMwalking;671019MTP (Magical Tea Party) is a short-hand invented by The Gaming Den (http://www.tgdmb.com/) to describe a situation where there are no 'rules' to adjudicate the situation. While it is generally disliked, it's not really a pejorative term - most people admit that there will be situations that the rules don't cover - but that those situations should tend to be based on uncommon situations. Things like combat and exploration and social interaction are expected to be common in a game like Dungeons and Dragons, and therefore we'd expect rules for them.
Closely related to MTP is the term 'suck the DMs cock'. That's the pejorative.
The idea is that if you can get the DM to agree that your action is reasonable (because there are no rules) you can succeed by gaining favor. If you want to 'win', you can suck the DMs cock and he'll agree that whatever you suggest is 'reasonable'.
There have been some discussions here where people talk about 'tracking a dragon to his lair' despite not having any tracking skills, the dragon flying, etc. The Den prefers real skills written on a character sheet so you don't have to convince the DM that 'you can totally track'.
Some people here think that if the rules don't say you CAN'T, then you can try it. Others prefer to have rules that say what you can do or how it works if you try something.
Tracking a dragon is an interesting example.
I was playing in a game recently where the characters had no tracking or wilderness skills at all. But they tracked the trail of an ogre pulling a wagon because it was an obvious trail.
I can see situations where one might track without the skill.
Fresh snow? :)
Quote from: deadDMwalking;671159People can take insult for whatever reason they want. Yes, when most people on the Gaming Den talk about Magical Tea Party, it's not high praise. While it has a place, it is almost universally seen as a failure in the system.
Lord Mistborn pulled a quote from Frank that may express the Den's View of it best:
I was not taking issue with the positions of people at the gaming den. Magic Tea party is a term I have seen used all over the net. Just pointing out that if you equate a different style of play with a sexual act, people are not going to take your arguments or you all that seriously. And if you call a different style of play, Magic Tea Party, don't be surprised if they just view it as empty and dismissive rhetoric. It is no mystery why MTP is perceived as a bit of an insult. As I said, it is about as useful as saying someone has apergers because they like RAW. You are not really having a discussing at that point. I understand posters getting angry when a discussion has reached a bit of a peak, and letting loose some insults. But the trend of just immediately firing off these kinds of descriptors of people just because they game a bit differently (and this applies to people all over the map playstyle wise) is increasingly causing me to tune such folks out and only pay attention to those who do not feel the need to resort to that sort of rhetoric. Its only purpose is to dismiss and antagonize.
When you play a roleplaying game for the roleplaying, or IC immersion, the rules are there for simple task resolution.
When you play a roleplaying game for the game, the tactical challenge, then the rules become more important, because your ability to play within the rules and your enjoyment stems from success within that system.
When you play a roleplaying game for the story, the narrative control, then the rules also become more important, because the rules govern how the player gains that narrative control over the "fiction".
When your agenda is something other then immersion, or immersion is secondary, then restricting the GM to playing by the rules like everyone else becomes vital, because that rules system that focuses on something other then immersion is why you are playing that game as opposed to something else.
Now, unfortunately, both the tactical and narrative agendas, which by necessity restrict the GM's role, tend to accumulate players who care more about social dynamics and personal power relationships at the table, then actually gaming. The tactical agenda in particular attracts the worst of the CharOp crowd, the munchkins, the rules-lawyers, those who bolster their self-esteem by winning through loophole finding. As Brendan said, the use of grade school level submissive homosexual insults by that crowd says quite a bit.
As for Dead in this thread, well, it's just another case of a relative moderate defending the idiotic extreme because they wear the same jersey. It happens and doesn't make him a bad guy.
Quote from: CRKrueger;671175".
, it.
As for Dead in this thread, well, it's just another case of a relative moderate defending the idiotic extreme because they wear the same jersey. It happens and doesn't make him a bad guy.
I agree. I think he is a fine poster. What I was reacting to wasn't dead's use of MTP but his claim that it was a neutral term. He seemed to be describing other people using it rather than invoking it himself as well.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;671159People can take insult for whatever reason they want. Yes, when most people on the Gaming Den talk about Magical Tea Party, it's not high praise. While it has a place, it is almost universally seen as a failure in the system.
:
Not high praise? Not high praise is things like, "It's OK." or "It's really not that appealing to me." or "It's meh." It's a term used to describe something not good, but not that bad either. Those aren't statements that accompany a quote where MTP has been used. When MTP is used, it's almost exclusively in the context of vehemence or strong disdain for whatever game you're talking about.
Christ, if you can't even be honest with yourself, how can we expect you to be honest with us?
MTP complaints (along with a lot of related concerns about how important it is to constrain the GM) seems to be part of an extended hangover from the "GM as frustrated novelist" syndrome that some people experienced.
I certainly understand not liking frustrated novelist GMs, but the 90s were a long time ago. Is that really common any more?
Quote from: Dimitrios;671181MTP complaints (along with a lot of related concerns about how important it is to constrain the GM) seems to be part of an extended hangover from the "GM as frustrated novelist" syndrome that some people experienced.
I certainly understand not liking frustrated novelist GMs, but the 90s were a long time ago. Is that really common any more?
Heh, read the Shadowrun 5th lamentation Silva's got going.
Quote from: FrankTrollmanMTP is usually used in the context of "that's just MTP". Magical Teaparty is the first RPG element. It's free. And we can use it to mind caulk anything. That's not revolutionary, and the results aren't predictable.
So when someone says they have a cool system of handling something, and that "system" is MTP, it would not be unusual at all for someone on the Den to say "That's just MTP." And even though tone doesn't carry over text on the interwebs terribly well, I want to assure you that the sentence would be absolutely dripping with scorn. But it wouldn't be dismissive and contemptuous because MTP is inherently bad, it would be such because the delivered product would be literally the equal of what a five year old could do.
If a five year old does a stick figure in crayon, it is charming and goes on the fridge. If a grown man does one and asks why I don't want it on my fridge, I don't think that needs a reasoned response. It deserves a dismissive and cruel comment. And I am sure that it would get one.
But what MTP is, fundamentally, is worse than every single other rule in your game. At least, it fucking better be. Because MTP is free and takes up zero space. So absolutely any rule you write that isn't better than MTP is something you should cut in editing. Which doesn't mean MTP is "bad" or that it doesn't have a place. It just means that every single rule you include in your game is supposed to be better than MTP.
-Frank
This guy doesn't understand what appeals to so many about role playing games.
He's too busy wanking over rules within rules and games as products where every single component must be spelled out and every screw tightened "just so" in his theoretical la la land to take notice.
Quote from: CRKrueger;671175When you play a roleplaying game for the roleplaying, or IC immersion, the rules are there for simple task resolution.
When you play a roleplaying game for the game, the tactical challenge, then the rules become more important, because your ability to play within the rules and your enjoyment stems from success within that system.
When you play a roleplaying game for the story, the narrative control, then the rules also become more important, because the rules govern how the player gains that narrative control over the "fiction".
When your agenda is something other then immersion, or immersion is secondary, then restricting the GM to playing by the rules like everyone else becomes vital, because that rules system that focuses on something other then immersion is why you are playing that game as opposed to something else.
Now, unfortunately, both the tactical and narrative agendas, which by necessity restrict the GM's role, tend to accumulate players who care more about social dynamics and personal power relationships at the table, then actually gaming. The tactical agenda in particular attracts the worst of the CharOp crowd, the munchkins, the rules-lawyers, those who bolster their self-esteem by winning through loophole finding. As Brendan said, the use of grade school level submissive homosexual insults by that crowd says quite a bit.
I was pretty much with you until this last paragraph. This is exactly the kind of stuff people are railing against in regard to MTP's negative connotations. The sooner people stop pathologising other styles of play, or judging it by its most extreme and crackpot practitioners, the better.
Quote from: CRKrueger;671175When you play a roleplaying game for the game, the tactical challenge, then the rules become more important, because your ability to play within the rules and your enjoyment stems from success within that system.
For some people, specifically the people who think the tactical challenge is solely contained within the parameters of the rules, or should be, maybe. But I for one do not share that POV.
I play D&D in part for the tactical challenge. I think the tactical challenge may be facilitated by the rules, their abstraction, the way they work, interact with each other and so on, sure, but I also think the challenge itself rests squarely within the world and the particular situations depicted by the game, the agency between the exploration setting and the adventuring party as they meet in the make-believe.
So I'm really not behind this notion that the rules are the game, and that the tactical challenge thereby would be all about how the game mechanics interact. If the situation can't be solved by applying actual common sense tactics to the make-believe, and instead relies on rules-lawyering your way out of problems, there's something wrong going on for me at the game table. My tactical interest in the game, specifically, will not be challenged.
Quote from: Benoist;671192For some people, specifically the people who think the tactical challenge is solely contained within the parameters of the rules, or should be, maybe. But I for one do not share that POV.
I play D&D in part for the tactical challenge. I think the tactical challenge may be facilitated by the rules, their abstraction, the way they work, interact with each other and so on, sure, but I also think the challenge itself rests squarely within the world and the particular situations depicted by the game, the agency between the exploration setting and the adventuring party as they meet in the make-believe.
So I'm really not behind this notion that the rules are the game, and that the tactical challenge thereby would be all about how the game mechanics interact. If the situation can't be solved by applying actual common sense tactics to the make-believe, and instead relies on rules-lawyering your way out of problems, there's something wrong going on for me at the game table. My tactical interest in the game, specifically, will not be challenged.
I think it's just two different, perfectly valid ways to do it. Either the rules themselves are the underpinning of the puzzle that needs to be solved, or the GM's vision is. Critics of the first call it rules lawyering, critics of the second call it pixel bitching or MTP. It's all just code for badwrongfun at the end of the day.
>>...Originally Posted by FrankTrollman
... "That's just MTP." And even though tone doesn't carry over text on the interwebs terribly well, I want to assure you that the sentence would be absolutely dripping with scorn ....<<<
Aaaannd we're done as far as whether that phrase is "neutral" or vague praise.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;671169While anyone may be able to MTP, not everyone can make rulings fairly and consistently. Making rulings is a skill that is developed like any other. It is part of a good DMs skillset. If there are no situations in a game that rules do not fully cover then a human DM isn't needed in the first place. The whole point of tabletop rpgs is the ability to go beyond the pre-programmed code a computer game provides.
Developing such skills takes time and involves some trial and error. A group that communicates openly and doesn't treat the game like such serious business is important to the development of such skills.
Trial and error, yeah. But you can help that process along by including, in the core rulebook, copious examples of how to actually use the mechanics in play and how to extrapolate from them, to help less experienced GM's get to that point faster, and that book is then more useful for play.
And the quicker you get to that point, the less comparatively rubbish sessions a new group or new GM is going to have to get through. It's those early, shitty, sessions that kill newer groups and newer players.
Already-experienced GM's can whine and bitch all they want about the book stating the obvious or somehow trying to constrain GM's, but those parts of the book just aren't for them. They don't need them, they can skip them and just move on, no problem.
I think the whole issue of teaparty, gm's making calls, etc..is mainly an issue of the gm learning when its a good idea to bend the rules and when it is a bad idea.
As Exploderwizard said above, if the rules literally cover everything, you don't need a gm. You are playing chess.
Quote from: Doom;671201>>...Originally Posted by FrankTrollman
... "That's just MTP." And even though tone doesn't carry over text on the interwebs terribly well, I want to assure you that the sentence would be absolutely dripping with scorn ....<<<
Aaaannd we're done as far as whether that phrase is "neutral" or vague praise.
More like Frank LoLman, amirite or amirite?
Quote from: Bill;671211I think the whole issue of teaparty, gm's making calls, etc..is mainly an issue of the gm learning when its a good idea to bend the rules and when it is a bad idea.
As Exploderwizard said above, if the rules literally cover everything, you don't need a gm. You are playing chess.
A kind of an interesting point, I'll admit.
Sadly, I seem to run more and more into the "MTP" people. As I recalled in other thread, my favourite one was the guy who was praising ToC over CoC based on ideas that "Playing CoC where you don't request rolls from people ALWAYS as they attempt something skill related is narrative play he grew out of (p. sure he'd use MTP if he knew it)". And you know, went on to play ToC...which is built wholesomely around the idea of narrative play.
Not to me. Rules lawyering during the game IS badwrongfun to me, because I'm not playing an RPG to pixelbitch about the rules and consider the rules as the be-all, end-all of the experience. Moreover, it's not about the DM making the calls. The DM has the last word as referee as a mean to an end. I'm playing and participating to the make-believe with my character as well, and the end is to share the make-believe and live it in our mind's eye.
When I think of MTP I think of Mother-May-I.
Do they mean the same thing or am I getting confused?
Quote from: Benoist;671220Not to me. Rules lawyering during the game IS badwrongfun to me, because I'm not playing an RPG to pixelbitch about the rules and consider the rules as the be-all, end-all of the experience. Moreover, it's not about the DM making the calls. The DM has the last word as referee as a mean to an end. I'm playing and participating to the make-believe with my character as well, and the end is to share the make-believe and live it in our mind's eye.
That fits me well. Immersion is the main reason I play rpgs.
Quote from: soviet;671222When I think of MTP I think of Mother-May-I.
Do they mean the same thing or am I getting confused?
Often used together, but they mean different things. At least I think so. MTP is more of "let's all tell a story without any rules at all!" while MMI is the players begging, bribing, or otherwise hoping their PCs can do something if the DM says it's OK.
Quote from: soviet;671222When I think of MTP I think of Mother-May-I.
Do they mean the same thing or am I getting confused?
I think its the same thing. Some people just don't like the gm to alter the raw rules at all.
Quote from: Benoist;671220Not to me. Rules lawyering during the game IS badwrongfun to me, because I'm not playing an RPG to pixelbitch about the rules and consider the rules as the be-all, end-all of the experience. Moreover, it's not about the DM making the calls. The DM has the last word as referee as a mean to an end. I'm playing and participating to the make-believe with my character as well, and the end is to share the make-believe and live it in our mind's eye.
I agree in general, BUT what about "logic lawyering"? I've been playing under a New Age GM a few games (that Warhammer campaign - hey, it was first campaign I played in rather than GMed in over 2 years, so it left a bad taste :P), and there were a few fights where we were hitting in 4 people one guy...and there was no flanking bonus. So I asked the GM "Don't I get a flanking bonus? There's a four of us pouncing on this guy?" And he said "No, there is no flanking bonus rule in the mechanics".
....
And the best thing is, I think there is actually a flanking bonus in WFRP 2e manual, so I started arguing about it*.
*I'm sure there is one in WFRP 1e.
Quote from: Bill;671227I think its the same thing. Some people just don't like the gm to alter the raw rules at all.
The problem is, that this often leads to absurdity. I've been to a Dragon Age game where a GM didn't allow flanking bonuses, there were no attacks of opportunity (so my wizard just kept on running and shooting, keeping the distance away OR forcing the enemy to forsake their attack so they'd run towards me) but the thief rolled every turn a hide check,
even when on a horse in the middle of a wheat field, to see if he gets a backstab.
It was a fun game in general, but there were grinding teeth pieces in it.
Quote from: Bill;671227I think its the same thing. Some people just don't like the gm to alter the raw rules at all.
Sometimes for very good reason. Sometimes not. Some GMs are sadistic assholes who only enjoy the game if they can prevent anyone else from enjoying it. Some players are whiney rule-lawyering bitches.
And some of both are grown ups.
Quote from: taustin;671233Sometimes for very good reason. Sometimes not. Some GMs are sadistic assholes who only enjoy the game if they can prevent anyone else from enjoying it. Some players are whiney rule-lawyering bitches.
And some of both are grown ups.
Human nature, gotta love it :)
In a perfect world no one would have to play with either, but sometimes those guys are your friends.
Quote from: taustin;671233Sometimes for very good reason. Sometimes not. Some GMs are sadistic assholes who only enjoy the game if they can prevent anyone else from enjoying it.
.
And in my day, the easy fix for this was to not play with them. Simple as that. No need to create these huge rules bloat as official canon to fix broken players.
That's the one thing Mearls said that I agree with. Rules should not be designed to fix broken players.
I'll add to that, "Especially at the cost of creativity."
I don't think it's fair to dismiss Frank's issues with MTP out of hand.
He agrees that it is the 'starting point' of an RPG. Not only does it exist, it's a fundamental part of the play experience - the genesis of RPGs. People often use Cowboys and Indians as an example and it works the same way. An RPG takes a concept like that and adds rules to resolve actions. There's no question whether the comboy shot the Injun dead in an RPG; you roll attacks; you roll damage - you allow the dice to define the reality of the game. You don't say 'you're dead' followed by the other side saying 'nuh-uh'.
Everything can be solved by Magic Tea Party (or Cowboys and Indians). Everyone can agree on what SHOULD happen, and you can have a delightful game.
But nobody needs to pay money for a book to tell you that 'it's okay to decide what happens'. You already could do that before the book said it was okay.
The reason TGD is so down on MTP is because they're trying to buy a system that has rules; when it says 'just ignore the rules and decide what you think should happen' it completely invalidates the purpose of the ruleset. Yes, of course you can always do that - but the rules shouldn't expect you to do that.
Taking his entire statement it's pretty clear that he expects the rules you pay money for to provide more than the 'free rules' you get when you just decide what you think should happen.
Nobody here needs a book to tell them Rule 0 exists. And if the only rule is Rule 0, then there's no reason to have a book at all.
Magic Tea Party (taken to an extreme) is Rule 0 with no other rules.
Quote from: Ladybird;671204Trial and error, yeah. But you can help that process along by including, in the core rulebook, copious examples of how to actually use the mechanics in play and how to extrapolate from them, to help less experienced GM's get to that point faster, and that book is then more useful for play.
And the quicker you get to that point, the less comparatively rubbish sessions a new group or new GM is going to have to get through. It's those early, shitty, sessions that kill newer groups and newer players.
Already-experienced GM's can whine and bitch all they want about the book stating the obvious or somehow trying to constrain GM's, but those parts of the book just aren't for them. They don't need them, they can skip them and just move on, no problem.
Examples are good but the majority of rulings are made due to the highly circumstantial nature of the situation. If something were common enough to be a typical example then it would probably have a rule in place.
A section on how to extrapolate existing mechanics to novel situations should be a part of every rules-light system.
As far as "shitty" sessions go, thats the gaming as serious business I was talking about. A bad call or two does not automatically make a shitty session. Refusing to discuss those calls and listen to feedback
doesmake it shitty.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;671246Nobody here needs a book to tell them Rule 0 exists. And if the only rule is Rule 0, then there's no reason to have a book at all.
Mhm, except it's not what the point really is.
As a Pole, I have a trait Paranoid: Reading Between the Lines. And here's what the deal really is, at least to me:
The point is to first ridicule Rule 0, then aim to it's removal from the books. Generation or two later, almost nobody who enters the hobby knows about the "rule to change all rules". It's what Forge aimed to do, and seeing how many new GMs I see that are shocked to read in manual "You may change the rules"...
Few years later down the line, you have people who don't apply flanking bonuses because the manual did not tell them to, or allow people to hide in the plain sight while ride on a horse, or allow a wizard to have a regular Achilles and Tortoise paradox happen during the game, because there are no AoO.
Quote from: Rincewind1;671249Mhm, except it's not what the point really is.
As a Pole, I have a trait Paranoid: Reading Between the Lines. And here's what the deal really is, at least to me:
The point is to first ridicule Rule 0, then aim to it's removal from the books. Generation or two later, almost nobody who enters the hobby knows about the "rule to change all rules". It's what Forge aimed to do, and seeing how many new GMs I see that are shocked to read in manual "You may change the rules"...
I do not think there is a conspiracy going on. If so, i pity the folk who have toiled countless hours plotting to one day, years from now, have rule zero be less than memory. I think some people just honestly dislike games where the rules are enforced not very consistently. I do not fault people for prefering more consistent eloyment of the rules, or thinking that rule zero is invoked too often. It is a spectum of preference. Personally, i do like consistency of rules but I also like the GM having the authority to help keep rule outcomes consistent with logic, and go beyond the limits inherent in rules systems.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;671246I don't think it's fair to dismiss Frank's issues with MTP out of hand.
He agrees that it is the 'starting point' of an RPG. Not only does it exist, it's a fundamental part of the play experience - the genesis of RPGs. People often use Cowboys and Indians as an example and it works the same way. An RPG takes a concept like that and adds rules to resolve actions. There's no question whether the comboy shot the Injun dead in an RPG; you roll attacks; you roll damage - you allow the dice to define the reality of the game. You don't say 'you're dead' followed by the other side saying 'nuh-uh'.
Everything can be solved by Magic Tea Party (or Cowboys and Indians). Everyone can agree on what SHOULD happen, and you can have a delightful game.
But nobody needs to pay money for a book to tell you that 'it's okay to decide what happens'. You already could do that before the book said it was okay.
The reason TGD is so down on MTP is because they're trying to buy a system that has rules; when it says 'just ignore the rules and decide what you think should happen' it completely invalidates the purpose of the ruleset. Yes, of course you can always do that - but the rules shouldn't expect you to do that.
Taking his entire statement it's pretty clear that he expects the rules you pay money for to provide more than the 'free rules' you get when you just decide what you think should happen.
Nobody here needs a book to tell them Rule 0 exists. And if the only rule is Rule 0, then there's no reason to have a book at all.
Magic Tea Party (taken to an extreme) is Rule 0 with no other rules.
What is magic tea party then? I have honestly never been in a game that was only rule zero (and i have played in plenty of "rulings not rules" campaigns). If that is the definition, then I'd say it largely jst exists in peoples' imagination. To me this just feels like an argument against a straw man, or at least an extreme oversimplification of certain styles of play.
Quote from: Rincewind1;671249Mhm, except it's not what the point really is.
As a Pole, I have a trait Paranoid: Reading Between the Lines. And here's what the deal really is, at least to me:
The point is to first ridicule Rule 0, then aim to it's removal from the books. Generation or two later, almost nobody who enters the hobby knows about the "rule to change all rules". It's what Forge aimed to do, and seeing how many new GMs I see that are shocked to read in manual "You may change the rules"...
Few years later down the line, you have people who don't apply flanking bonuses because the manual did not tell them to, or allow people to hide in the plain sight while ride on a horse, or allow a wizard to have a regular Achilles and Tortoise paradox happen during the game, because there are no AoO.
Yep.
The rules serve the game. If the game is not deemed to exist beyond the rules then the rules have little purpose but to serve themselves.
A game consisting of only rules does not allow for much in the creativity department. Chess is a fine game of strategy but can never go beyond the board, and the pieces will always move in the proscribed manner. It would be a shame if there was no room for imagination in rpgs.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;671254It is a spectum of preference. Personally, i do like consistency of rules but I also like the GM having the authority to help keep rule outcomes consistent with logic, and go beyond the limits inherent in rules systems.
I don't have a problem with games like this, either. With a good GM, everyone can have a blast. So what if some people call it Magic Tea Party?
But I do also agree with Frank that you don't need to pay someone money for 'suggestions on how to play Magic Tea Party'.
If your rules cover most common situations (in Cowboys and Indians, it needs to cover how to determine a hit and how to determine the results of that hit) there's not a major problem if it fails to include contagion rules for giving the Indian Player SmallPox contaminated blankets. At least, until that becomes a common thing. Using Magic Tea Party isn't a problem - justifying not having rules for important aspects of the game because someone can just make up something that 'feels right' at the time is pretty lame.
The whole point of buying a set of rules is so you don't have to do all the design work. If you choose to do that, cool, but you shouldn't have to.
A good example is RISK. The game includes everything you need to play 'as written'. But lots of tables come up with optional rules. Some change the way RISK cards work; some change the way armies move; whatever. If RISK didn't include a complete set of rules, it wouldn't be worth the purchase price. If you
expand the rules to make it more fun for you, that's great! But if you HAVE to expand the rules to even make the game playable, that's bad. That's a lot of work for something that's supposed to be fun.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;671254I do not think there is a conspiracy going on. If so, i pity the folk who have toiled countless hours plotting to one day, years from now, have rule zero be less than memory. I think some people just honestly dislike games where the rules are enforced not very consistently. I do not fault people for prefering more consistent eloyment of the rules, or thinking that rule zero is invoked too often. It is a spectum of preference. Personally, i do like consistency of rules but I also like the GM having the authority to help keep rule outcomes consistent with logic, and go beyond the limits inherent in rules systems.
Nobody really starts a conspiracy by saying "Hey, let us sit down and skulk in the shadows discussing odd things". It's not a conspiracy as much as an attempt to change tastes - you start with a man who gives out radical statements on the subject, he gains a group of supporters/followers, some game makers listen to them...you've seen all that happen with Forge, why assume Trollman wouldn't fancy himself another Edwards?
Heck - judging early response to Next, it seemed as if OSR movement gained enough momentum to warrant WotC's attention. Why can't TGD do the same to various other games? And like any other forum, they also fight for users, and their users will fight for them, so to speak. People often change their opinions to fit into places.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;671259I don't have a problem with games like this, either. With a good GM, everyone can have a blast. So what if some people call it Magic Tea Party?
But I do also agree with Frank that you don't need to pay someone money for 'suggestions on how to play Magic Tea Party'.
If your rules cover most common situations (in Cowboys and Indians, it needs to cover how to determine a hit and how to determine the results of that hit) there's not a major problem if it fails to include contagion rules for giving the Indian Player SmallPox contaminated blankets. At least, until that becomes a common thing. Using Magic Tea Party isn't a problem - justifying not having rules for important aspects of the game because someone can just make up something that 'feels right' at the time is pretty lame.
The whole point of buying a set of rules is so you don't have to do all the design work. If you choose to do that, cool, but you shouldn't have to.
A good example is RISK. The game includes everything you need to play 'as written'. But lots of tables come up with optional rules. Some change the way RISK cards work; some change the way armies move; whatever. If RISK didn't include a complete set of rules, it wouldn't be worth the purchase price. If you expand the rules to make it more fun for you, that's great! But if you HAVE to expand the rules to even make the game playable, that's bad. That's a lot of work for something that's supposed to be fun.
Except there are no RPGs that fit this definition of "MTP". So obviously the definition is a tad broader.
Quote from: fuseboy;670805It evokes the idea that, without rules, there's no possible way we could get along. That would be magical, imaginary. Impossible. At least, not in an activity that involves conflicting goals (e.g. between a player who wants his character to climb a wall, and the GM who has decided that the wall is probably too high, or with another player who wants his character to climb up first).
Therefore, freeform must mean there are no conflicting goals, we're just happily playing together. A tea party!
Eric Berne wrote about an interesting concept in the sixties, the "time structuring problem." He argued that totally unstructured interactions were stressful, and that conversational rituals and pastimes have arisen to deal with that (e.g. talking about the weather). I'm sure this is one of the attractions of RPGs - lovers of fantasy (or whatever) can spend long hours together, getting the benefits of intense social interaction (more intense than, say, golf, which has a weather-like repetition of 'nice shot' and so on) while facing minimal uncertainty about the procedures of interaction.
Without the 'rules', when there's conflict relating to what happens in the game, it's just Geoff and Craig having an argument. So freeform play looks impossibly harmonious to some people.
The strict role definitions of the Immersion/Emulation play style strikes me as serving the same function: it gives everyone an absolutely clear understanding of who is responsible for what. Any hint of collaboration or reduction of GM power dilutes this clarity. Geoff and Steve start 'collaborating', but disagree - now the game is on hold while they work it out (or others chime in), or ultimately fail to work it out.
I hate how people blow past the gems in order to quibble over dog shit.
I thought this was a great post, and agree.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;671259The whole point of buying a set of rules is so you don't have to do all the design work. If you choose to do that, cool, but you shouldn't have to.
No such RPG exists or will ever exist. So that's a fallacy, or possibly a man o' straw. You could have degrees of MTP under such logic, but the usage is clearly binary. So that doesn't fit reality.
And aren't you overlooking (or even deliberately understating) the impact of MTP against the char op metagame? A game where the GM is forbidden from changing the rules is easier to exploit. Any time "because I said so" gets used to trump such shenanigans, MTP is the retort. So how does that fit?
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;671255What is magic tea party then? I have honestly never been in a game that was only rule zero (and i have played in plenty of "rulings not rules" campaigns). If that is the definition, then I'd say it largely jst exists in peoples' imagination. To me this just feels like an argument against a straw man, or at least an extreme oversimplification of certain styles of play.
A friend of mine who is in the Navy recently got into a group playing PF. He was excited to be gaming again, until he found out what was actually going on. They met, he rolled up a cleric(nothing unusual) Then the first session. He found out that AC meant nothing, combat was based around Reflex saves. He was able to cast anything from the spell list(he was playing a cleric) The Rogue was always able to sneak attack, turn invisible at will, fly(because he was a Master Vampire), the Ranger had a Dragon and Wyvern as companions, the Wizard was already a liche, the Barbarian had his own army of earth elementals. All of this craziness at 4th level.
That is Magic Tea Party.
Quote from: mcbobbo;671267No such RPG exists or will ever exist. So that's a fallacy, or possibly a man o' straw. You could have degrees of MTP under such logic, but the usage is clearly binary. So that doesn't fit reality.
And aren't you overlooking (or even deliberately understating) the impact of MTP against the char op metagame? A game where the GM is forbidden from changing the rules is easier to exploit. Any time "because I said so" gets used to trump such shenanigans, MTP is the retort. So how does that fit?
And aren't you overlooking (or even deliberately understating) the impact of MTP against the actual game and casual player? A game where the GM is forbidden from changing the rules is easier to understand.
Quote from: Sommerjon;671271And aren't you overlooking (or even deliberately understating) the impact of MTP against the actual game and casual player? A game where the GM is forbidden from changing the rules is easier to understand.
So is Monopoly. Why not play that?
In addition, I have not had much a problem with casual players teaching them to play B/X. Very simple to start playing without reading any rules at all.
I think more people will understand a logical call ("You can't hide, it's middle of the day and you stand in a plain sight of everyone") over sticking to absurd rules or loopholes, but yeah it's easier to understand of course.
This is the core of the discussion regarding "lack of social interaction in old D&D". You have such people who can only play by strictly sticking to the rules, and when they see no social skills, they decree there can be no social interaction in the game.
Madness, I tell you.
Quote from: Bill;671237Human nature, gotta love it :)
Only if you're amused by "what the hell is wrong with you" sorts of people. You know, the people whose last words will be "hey, y'all, watch this."
Quote from: Bill;671237In a perfect world no one would have to play with either, but sometimes those guys are your friends.
In a perfect world, there would be people who would look forward to playing with both, as both represent common preferences.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;671241And in my day, the easy fix for this was to not play with them. Simple as that. No need to create these huge rules bloat as official canon to fix broken players.
Indeed.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;671241That's the one thing Mearls said that I agree with. Rules should not be designed to fix broken players.
I'll add to that, "Especially at the cost of creativity."
And I'll add, "Unless that's how you like it." And some do.
Quote from: Sommerjon;671268A friend of mine...
I roll to disbelieve.
Ok, show of hands:
Who here ever played pure "magical tea party" as a kid? Like, you were playing a RPG, but either you didn't have rules on hand or you wanted to play an RPG you didn't have rules for? A little more specific than just playing pretend, here: I'm thinking of activities where you would have used RPG books if they were available.
I did this a number of times on the bus and on sleepovers. I ran a little campaign on the bus where everyone played fighter pilots, Top Gun/ Airwolf style.
Quote from: Rincewind1;671249Mhm, except it's not what the point really is.
As a Pole, I have a trait Paranoid: Reading Between the Lines. And here's what the deal really is, at least to me:
The point is to first ridicule Rule 0, then aim to it's removal from the books. Generation or two later, almost nobody who enters the hobby knows about the "rule to change all rules". It's what Forge aimed to do, and seeing how many new GMs I see that are shocked to read in manual "You may change the rules"...
Few years later down the line, you have people who don't apply flanking bonuses because the manual did not tell them to, or allow people to hide in the plain sight while ride on a horse, or allow a wizard to have a regular Achilles and Tortoise paradox happen during the game, because there are no AoO.
That's not a problem with what's in or not in the rules. That's a problem with players who have no common sense. I
never needed the rule book to say "you can change the rules however you want," and neither did anyone that I game with.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;671254I do not think there is a conspiracy going on. If so, i pity the folk who have toiled countless hours plotting to one day, years from now, have rule zero be less than memory. I think some people just honestly dislike games where the rules are enforced not very consistently. I do not fault people for prefering more consistent eloyment of the rules, or thinking that rule zero is invoked too often. It is a spectum of preference. Personally, i do like consistency of rules but I also like the GM having the authority to help keep rule outcomes consistent with logic, and go beyond the limits inherent in rules systems.
We have a rule about that. We call it The Butter Knife Rule. It goes like this: "It's my game, and if I say a butter knife isn't available, a butter knife isn't available." It
instantly ends arguments, without acrimony, because we all pretend to be adults.
Quote from: jeff37923;671278I roll to disbelieve.
That only works with illusions, you know. Not with real life.
Quote from: Imp;671281Ok, show of hands:
Who here ever played pure "magical tea party" as a kid? Like, you were playing a RPG, but either you didn't have rules on hand or you wanted to play an RPG you didn't have rules for? A little more specific than just playing pretend, here: I'm thinking of activities where you would have used RPG books if they were available.
I did this a number of times on the bus and on sleepovers. I ran a little campaign on the bus where everyone played fighter pilots, Top Gun/ Airwolf style.
Yes, for sure. I remember, ten years old, lying on the floor of my front hall (where the only phone was) DMing my friend Aaron in a one-on-one game that was a freeform offshoot of the D&D game we'd been playing. Once in a while I'd tell him he'd levelled up.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;671272So is Monopoly. Why not play that?
In addition, I have not had much a problem with casual players teaching them to play B/X. Very simple to start playing without reading any rules at all.
So?
(http://th01.deviantart.net/fs70/200H/f/2011/234/3/f/wanna_cookie__by_werika-d47h033.png)
I haven't had much problems teaching casual players to play more rules-heavy games.
Quote from: fuseboy;671292Yes, for sure. I remember, ten years old, lying on the floor of my front hall (where the only phone was) DMing my friend Aaron in a one-on-one game that was a freeform offshoot of the D&D game we'd been playing. Once in a while I'd tell him he'd levelled up.
You forgot to add "but when we grew up and played Burning Wheel like adults".
;)
Quote from: Imp;671281Ok, show of hands:
Who here ever played pure "magical tea party" as a kid? Like, you were playing a RPG, but either you didn't have rules on hand or you wanted to play an RPG you didn't have rules for? A little more specific than just playing pretend, here: I'm thinking of activities where you would have used RPG books if they were available.
I did this a number of times on the bus and on sleepovers. I ran a little campaign on the bus where everyone played fighter pilots, Top Gun/ Airwolf style.
We did that, mostly on camping trips when there were no books. We improvised stuff from bits of rules people remembered.
Quote from: mcbobbo;671266I hate how people blow past the gems in order to quibble over dog shit.
I thought this was a great post, and agree.
Mighty kind of you. ;)
Quote from: Rincewind1;671297You forgot to add "but when we grew up and played Burning Wheel like adults".
;)
Damn straight! :)
Actually, come to think of it I'm playing in another one-on-one free-form game now, run by my nine year-old daughter.
Quote from: fuseboy;671301Damn straight! :)
Actually, come to think of it I'm playing in another one-on-one free-form game now, run by my nine year-old daughter.
Tell us how horrible it is. How many times did she ignore your skills and instead just HAND WAVED IT?
My cats are currently playing a Magical Tea Party RPG where they pretend that they are the Lords of Creation and I exist only to feed them and clean up their shit because I have the racial feat of "opposable thumbs".
Quote from: jeff37923;671311My cats are currently playing a Magical Tea Party RPG where they pretend that they are the Lords of Creation and I exist only to feed them and clean up their shit because I have the racial feat of "opposable thumbs".
Shhh. Don't break their immersion.
Quote from: jeff37923;671311My cats are currently playing a Magical Tea Party RPG where they pretend that they are the Lords of Creation and I exist only to feed them and clean up their shit because I have the racial feat of "opposable thumbs".
No no no, that's Mother May I, because everything depends on GMs goodwill (to feed).
Quote from: Sommerjon;671293So?
(http://th01.deviantart.net/fs70/200H/f/2011/234/3/f/wanna_cookie__by_werika-d47h033.png)
I haven't had much problems teaching casual players to play more rules-heavy games.
Chocolate chip please.
Glad to hear it. So I guess fixed vs fluid rules isn't a barrier to new players. So much for easier to understand.
Quote from: JonWake;671313Shhh. Don't break their immersion.
(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a81/Gn4rk1ll/citizen-kane-clapping.gif)
Quote from: jeff37923;671311My cats are currently playing a Magical Tea Party RPG where they pretend that they are the Lords of Creation and I exist only to feed them and clean up their shit because I have the racial feat of "opposable thumbs".
Have you considered taking levels as a Fighter? I have it on good authority that is their prime attribute.
In seriousness, the Den doesn't think that MTP shouldn't exist or that it doesn't exist. Just that it is the most basic form of an RPG. Any released product ought to be able to do better than that.
It can be a fun game, but it can't be a 'good game'. Good game in this context means designed well - the designers actually bring something to the game beyond what the players bring themselves.
That's what I like about a game like D&D - it's not just dependent on what the players know and can do. Magic Tea Party is limited by imagination. D&D incorporates imagination but is not limited by it.
Quote from: jeff37923;671311My cats are currently playing a Magical Tea Party RPG where they pretend that they are the Lords of Creation and I exist only to feed them and clean up their shit because I have the racial feat of "opposable thumbs".
I suspect you're playing, too, and will continue to do so.
Quote from: Rincewind1;671314No no no, that's Mother May I, because everything depends on GMs goodwill (to feed).
You've never lives with cats, have you? Even in the event that is actually the case, you will
never make the cats believe that.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;671359It can be a fun game, but it can't be a 'good game'. Good game in this context means designed well
Unless, of course, everyone likes it that way.
"Poorly designed" is an objective statement of fact. "Good" is inherently a statement of judgement, which is to say, opinion. There is no opinion on what is good or bad about a game that you will get anything like a consensus on.
Quote from: Sommerjon;671268A friend of mine who is in the Navy recently got into a group playing PF. He was excited to be gaming again, until he found out what was actually going on. They met, he rolled up a cleric(nothing unusual) Then the first session. He found out that AC meant nothing, combat was based around Reflex saves. He was able to cast anything from the spell list(he was playing a cleric) The Rogue was always able to sneak attack, turn invisible at will, fly(because he was a Master Vampire), the Ranger had a Dragon and Wyvern as companions, the Wizard was already a liche, the Barbarian had his own army of earth elementals. All of this craziness at 4th level.
That is Magic Tea Party.
We're they having fun? If so, then they were doing it right.
Quote from: Sommerjon;671268A friend of mine who is in the Navy recently got into a group playing PF. He was excited to be gaming again, until he found out what was actually going on. They met, he rolled up a cleric(nothing unusual) Then the first session. He found out that AC meant nothing, combat was based around Reflex saves. He was able to cast anything from the spell list(he was playing a cleric) The Rogue was always able to sneak attack, turn invisible at will, fly(because he was a Master Vampire), the Ranger had a Dragon and Wyvern as companions, the Wizard was already a liche, the Barbarian had his own army of earth elementals. All of this craziness at 4th level.
That is Magic Tea Party.
I once ran a game using the gestalt rules in 3.x along with savage species creature levels as the secondary class for the characters. They were playing as scions of gods and ran around leading armies and being utter badasses and having crazy amount of power for their level.
Granted, this was all within the rules (though I don't think savage species monster levels were ever meant to be used with gestalt and it led to hilarious levels of imbalance but that was part of the fun), and I ramped up the challenge to match it, but the crazy over the top power can be fun.
Quote from: Sommerjon;671268A friend of mine who is in the Navy recently got into a group playing PF. He was excited to be gaming again, until he found out what was actually going on. They met, he rolled up a cleric(nothing unusual) Then the first session. He found out that AC meant nothing, combat was based around Reflex saves. He was able to cast anything from the spell list(he was playing a cleric) The Rogue was always able to sneak attack, turn invisible at will, fly(because he was a Master Vampire), the Ranger had a Dragon and Wyvern as companions, the Wizard was already a liche, the Barbarian had his own army of earth elementals. All of this craziness at 4th level.
That is Magic Tea Party.
I would have called that 'Monty Haul' but Magic Tea Party is a new term for me.
I suppose there is nothing wrong with that playstyle if the players enjoy it, but that does sound pretty over the top for a 'low level' dnd game.
Quote from: Old One Eye;671413We're they having fun? If so, then they were doing it right.
Exactly. If the whole group was getting along and enjoying the game then its all good.
Quote from: Old One Eye;671413We're they having fun? If so, then they were doing it right.
Not all of the people were. My friend left after two sessions. He felt he was misled.
Quote from: Sommerjon;671598Not all of the people were. My friend left after two sessions. He felt he was misled.
Different people have different approaches to the game. And folks don't always described their playstyle accurately. Any time you try playing with new people, there is a chance it isn't a good match. Not really the end of the world though. It just kind of comes with the territory.
Quote from: taustin;670705Wank, wank, wank. Don't try to troll the master, kiddo. You haven't got what it takes.
Keep this up, and I'll have you arguing with Pee Wee Herman quotes by tomorrow.
I never troll this site. I have too much admiration for the Chief Polack.
Quote from: FASERIP;671764I never troll this site. I have too much admiration for the Chief Polack.
And you said that with a straight face, even.
But you still don't have what it takes, troll-boy.
Quote from: taustin;671773And you said that with a straight face, even.
But you still don't have what it takes, troll-boy.
Are you really trying to goad me into trolling? You're barking up the wrong tree.
Quote from: FASERIP;672086Are you really trying to goad me into trolling? You're barking up the wrong tree.
So far, son, I haven't seen a single post from you that hasn't been, quite obviously, a troll. And I
am an expert on trolling, after all. It'd be amusing if you were, well, amusing, but frankly, you're not very good at it. So it's just . . . sad.
Quote from: taustin;672096So far, son, I haven't seen a single post from you that hasn't been, quite obviously, a troll. And I am an expert on trolling, after all. It'd be amusing if you were, well, amusing, but frankly, you're not very good at it. So it's just . . . sad.
Show, don't tell.
Quote from: FASERIP;672099Show, don't tell.
I do hope that doesn't mean you're going to start posting pictures of your penis (photoshopped, no doubt, to make it look bigger).
That would be against site rules.
Calling someone a troll on therpgsite is like calling someone an American at a 4th of July BBQ.
Quote from: TristramEvans;672112Calling someone a troll on therpgsite is like calling someone an American at a 4th of July BBQ.
I forget what number it is on the list, but it's a reliable stand-by for conversation.
Quote from: FASERIP;672108That would be against site rules.
Izzat the only thing stopping you?
Quote from: TristramEvans;672112Calling someone a troll on therpgsite is like calling someone an American at a 4th of July BBQ.
Well, yeah, but he squeals so amusingly, like a little girl piggie, when you poke him.
Why the creative spelling all of a sudden?
Quote from: FASERIP;672121Why the creative spelling all of a sudden?
If you quoted what you're replying to, someone might have some idea what you're jibbering about. But, of course, that would interfere with the troll, wouldn't it?
Standard troll trick #248: say something vaguely insulting, but with no indication of who it's aimed at. Then, whoever replies, you can retreat to "but, but, but, I wasn't talking about
you, you're just overly sensitive."
I'll give it a 1.25 for the effort, but poorly executed as usual.
Any sites you can recommend to improve technique?
Quote from: FASERIP;672123Any sites you can recommend to improve technique?
I'm sorely tempted to go Google for tips on how to masturbate, but that'd probably violate one of the few rules here, too.
But I'll give you a 2.0 for using the same lame-ass troll trick you've just been called on. That's at least a new lame-ass troll trick from you.
Let's bring this back to rpgs.
Quote from: TristramEvans;672112Calling someone a troll on therpgsite is like calling someone an American at a 4th of July BBQ.
"Dey say dat when a Troll cuts sumthin' off, it grows back bigger? ...Don't believe dem."
"magical tea party", as best as I can figure it, is a derogatory term applied by some to a type of play that actually happens, deceptively trying to make it out as something that doesn't actually happen.
It does happen. The people that really like magical tea party like to pretend that there are rules when there are none. The people who dislike it insist that game designers in particular recognize when the game is entering an area where the rules either don't exist or they don't work like the designers think they do.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;672794It does happen. The people that really like magical tea party like to pretend that there are rules when there are none. The people who dislike it insist that game designers in particular recognize when the game is entering an area where the rules either don't exist or they don't work like the designers think they do.
The fact that rules can be over-ruled by an arbiter doesn't mean that there are suddenly no rules.
RPGPundit
Quote from: deadDMwalking;671246I don't think it's fair to dismiss Frank's issues with MTP out of hand.
He agrees that it is the 'starting point' of an RPG. Not only does it exist, it's a fundamental part of the play experience - the genesis of RPGs. People often use Cowboys and Indians as an example and it works the same way.
I do like that people get much huffier when people compare RPGs to magical tea parties than to cowboys and indians, even though C&I is clearly a LARP whilst magical tea party, whilst it has LARPish qualities, is basically a talking exercise (and therefore much closer to tabletop RPGs).
I agree that it's inappropriate and wrong to say "You are a bunch of little girls and that is something to be ashamed of," but it's equally inappropriate to be all "How dare you suggest there is any commonality between me and a little girl, don't you realise that's something to be ashamed of?" For my part, I've done a quick skim of TGD (and finally started posting there, having made an account ages ago because Idunnowhy), and from what I've seen MTP is certainly used in clearly pejorative ways sometimes, but other times it's been used in much less pejorative ways, and most people on there seem to acknowledge that they do like at least a certain level of MTP.
I disagree that the level of inappropriateness is equivalent. Calling someone the wrong age is typically offensive. The wrong gender is likewise. MTP does both, where 'Cowboys and Indians' only hits the age button.
I think the other issue here is, while magic tea party really shouln't be any more dismissive than cow boys and indians (they are both childish games of make believe), it is clear that it is more dismisive ad intended to be so by the people using it. I really have a hard time buying that folks using MTP do not mean it in such a way.
The other problem is it is being used so broadly. It appears it can mean anything from having zero mechnics in a game, or section of a game, to simply believing in rule zero.
So you're assuming girls don't play C&I, assuming the person being addressed is a man, and then talking about how accusing people of being the "wrong" gender is offensive?
I tease, but you get my meaning right?
Quote from: Warthur;673220So you're assuming girls don't play C&I, assuming the person being addressed is a man, and then talking about how accusing people of being the "wrong" gender is offensive?
I tease, but you get my meaning right?
I actually assume nobody plays C&I any more whatsoever. Imagination games were destroyed my helicopter parenting which was a result of the blame the parent movement. So invoking that means you're aiming at Gen X or older.
I also assume that you are male, as is 97% of this community. I also assume that 100% of this community is accustomed to being addressed as male, or at least isn't offended by it when the voice is making an assumption.
I get the equality thing, but you're ignoring culture. Particularly the culture of whatever pit of hell coined that particular term. And that's what really matters - the context of the speaker's point of view.
I do concede that it would probably not offend our kids when they are adults. But I bet the majority of them, male and female, play more video games than have tea parties. So a new pejorative will need to be invented.
Quote from: Warthur;673220So you're assuming girls don't play C&I, assuming the person being addressed is a man, and then talking about how accusing people of being the "wrong" gender is offensive?
I tease, but you get my meaning right?
No. I am assuming people who invoke magical tea party think that, and they use the term because they think painting the other side as a bunch of girls is effective rhetoric. It says more about those using it than it does about the targets. I am comfortable enough in my skin not to worry what people think about my masculinity or my sexuality. But I do know when someone is tying to be insulting (even if the insult itself is filled with assumptions and enormously misguided).
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;673225No. I am assuming people who invoke magical tea party think that, and they use the term because they think painting the other side as a bunch of girls is effective rhetoric.
Eh, I think there's factions on TGD who use MTP as a pejorative and factions who don't but use the term because everyone understands what it denotes and who defend the fact that there's actually a place on tabletop RPGs for MTP-type play.
I think in general it is a mistake it imagine that every RPG forum is as ideologically driven as the Forge or Tangency. They just have their local forum culture as we do ours, and they tend not to be as monolithic as they look.
Quote from: Warthur;673244Eh, I think there's factions on TGD who use MTP as a pejorative and factions who don't but use the term because everyone understands what it denotes and who defend the fact that there's actually a place on tabletop RPGs for MTP-type play.
I think in general it is a mistake it imagine that every RPG forum is as ideologically driven as the Forge or Tangency. They just have their local forum culture as we do ours, and they tend not to be as monolithic as they look.
I am not talking about those forums. Just about how I see the term used in general. When I encounter it, it is almost always used negatively and dismissively.
Quote from: RPGPundit;673125The fact that rules can be over-ruled by an arbiter doesn't mean that there are suddenly no rules.
Rules being over-ruled by an arbiter means there are
no rules for the arbiter.
That's the issue for some people.
The players have to follow the rules, the arbiter not so much.
Cue "good gms blah, blah, blah." and other hair-splitting.
Quote from: Sommerjon;673434Rules being over-ruled by an arbiter means there are no rules for the arbiter.
That's the issue for some people.
The players have to follow the rules, the arbiter not so much.
Cue "good gms blah, blah, blah." and other hair-splitting.
In an rpg all rules are guidelines to one degree or another. The GM follows a set of guidelines as well or ends up without any players.
If you want to play a game with an arbiter that can't make rulings just plug into a crpg. You will get a game run by a strict code as you desire.
If you want to be able to go beyond the programmed code then play with a human GM who will do likewise. Keeping the GM in server status either restricts the players to robotic push-button play or crashes the game.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;673465In an rpg all rules are guidelines to one degree or another. The GM follows a set of guidelines as well or ends up without any players.
If you want to play a game with an arbiter that can't make rulings just plug into a crpg. You will get a game run by a strict code as you desire.
If you want to be able to go beyond the programmed code then play with a human GM who will do likewise. Keeping the GM in server status either restricts the players to robotic push-button play or crashes the game.
We played C&S 1st strictly by the rules as written. Campaign lasted about 15 years. It only ended with the GM had medical issues the kept him from being able to run it any more.
So I'd say your universal truth isn't, however common is is, universal.
(We get real, real close on Fantasy Hero, too. Mainly, house rules are not allowing things the rules say the GM should be really careful about allowing.)
Quote from: Exploderwizard;673465In an rpg all rules are guidelines to one degree or another. The GM follows a set of guidelines as well or ends up without any players.
If you want to play a game with an arbiter that can't make rulings just plug into a crpg. You will get a game run by a strict code as you desire.
If you want to be able to go beyond the programmed code then play with a human GM who will do likewise. Keeping the GM in server status either restricts the players to robotic push-button play or crashes the game.
The players have to follow the rules, the arbiter not so much.
QuoteEh, I think there's factions on TGD who use MTP as a pejorative and factions who don't but use the term because everyone understands what it denotes and who defend the fact that there's actually a place on tabletop RPGs for MTP-type play.
TGD is generally not worth reading. I find the dissection of mechanics to be interesting, but there are too many big egos crowding out the fishpond, so threads pretty quickly devolve into Internet slapfights. Not to say that doesn't happen here, of course, but it's markedly worse over there.
Quote from: taustin;673467We played C&S 1st strictly by the rules as written. Campaign lasted about 15 years. It only ended with the GM had medical issues the kept him from being able to run it any more.
So I'd say your universal truth isn't, however common is is, universal.
(We get real, real close on Fantasy Hero, too. Mainly, house rules are not allowing things the rules say the GM should be really careful about allowing.)
One thing I seem to be observing here, is that some gm's are RAW, and others bend rules as they see fit.
That's obvious but leads to my next observation.
Does not a RAW gm control the universe?
Can't a RAW gm get a similar effect to bending rules through the many calls they make all the time?
The gm decides when the lich king sends his death knights to murder the pc's.
So I wonder if the raw/notraw thing is really all that big a deal?
Quote from: Bill;673576One thing I seem to be observing here, is that some gm's are RAW, and others bend rules as they see fit.
That's obvious but leads to my next observation.
Does not a RAW gm control the universe?
Can't a RAW gm get a similar effect to bending rules through the many calls they make all the time?
The gm decides when the lich king sends his death knights to murder the pc's.
So I wonder if the raw/notraw thing is really all that big a deal?
Too much RAW influence stifles creativity and turns the game into a series of mechanized auto responses.
Too much freeforming and the game has no structure. At that point the GM might as well just tell the story of what happens.
Somewhere in between is the sweet spot, with enough rules definition to maintain a consistent game world, leaving room for creativity to create mystery.
The players need to be aware of how the world functions but do not need to be aware of all possibilities. Ideally this means that the GM should conduct combat fairly by the rules and not engage in illusionism (which is lazy GMing IMHO). As far as world elements go, the GM should have more freedom. New monsters and npcs that do not ahere to template bullshit are perfectly fine.
This is one aspect of 4E design that I agree with. Monsters and npcs do not need to be built with the same rules as PCs. I wasn't a fan of the specific implementation in a lot of cases (you don't really need 40 different goblin statblocks to define the nosepicker, the butt scatcher, the taintlicker, etc.)
The most important thing is communicating with the players. Any rules changes that they by all rights
shouldbe aware of, ought to be discussed before the game. Don't wait till someone rolls up a cleric to mention that clerics don't get spells at 1st level in your campaign.
Quote from: Archangel Fascist;673520TGD is generally not worth reading. I find the dissection of mechanics to be interesting, but there are too many big egos crowding out the fishpond, so threads pretty quickly devolve into Internet slapfights. Not to say that doesn't happen here, of course, but it's markedly worse over there.
On TGD I see a lot of that. Never posted there because they allow things that are objectively, measurably wrong to stand by the volume of its speaking voice alone. But if I wanted to understand the fiddly bits of a particular 3e feat, I would point Google in that direction.
Doesn't come up that often. :)
Quote from: Exploderwizard;673592Too much RAW influence stifles creativity and turns the game into a series of mechanized auto responses.
Too much freeforming and the game has no structure. At that point the GM might as well just tell the story of what happens.
Somewhere in between is the sweet spot, with enough rules definition to maintain a consistent game world, leaving room for creativity to create mystery.
The players need to be aware of how the world functions but do not need to be aware of all possibilities. Ideally this means that the GM should conduct combat fairly by the rules and not engage in illusionism (which is lazy GMing IMHO). As far as world elements go, the GM should have more freedom. New monsters and npcs that do not ahere to template bullshit are perfectly fine.
This is one aspect of 4E design that I agree with. Monsters and npcs do not need to be built with the same rules as PCs. I wasn't a fan of the specific implementation in a lot of cases (you don't really need 40 different goblin statblocks to define the nosepicker, the butt scatcher, the taintlicker, etc.)
The most important thing is communicating with the players. Any rules changes that they by all rights shouldbe aware of, ought to be discussed before the game. Don't wait till someone rolls up a cleric to mention that clerics don't get spells at 1st level in your campaign.
Pretty much my thoughts as well.
You reminded me of a gm who surprised a player during a game with 'Oh, by the way, magic user spells can only be powered by human sacrifice'
The player was pretty bullshit, having chosen to be lawful good and all :)
Quote from: Bill;673576One thing I seem to be observing here, is that some gm's are RAW, and others bend rules as they see fit.
That's obvious but leads to my next observation.
Does not a RAW gm control the universe?
Can't a RAW gm get a similar effect to bending rules through the many calls they make all the time?
The gm decides when the lich king sends his death knights to murder the pc's.
So I wonder if the raw/notraw thing is really all that big a deal?
We're wandering into that other thread...
But I agree. It's about one thing - discretion. If you don't allow your GM to use it, then he or she is not actually a GM at all. Whether in rules adjudication, design, or table management, there are needs for leadership in role playing games. If you are doing something different, then we're discussing two different things.
I will say though, that many years at the GM helm has made me a sort of defacto leader in other games as well. If, say, we wanted to forgo the payment of rent in Monopoly to give the underdog a fighting chance, my family typically looks to me to rule on it. I usually say 'so long as everyone is fine with it', but it's interesting. Particularly because I run nothing else in the household. I don't carry a checkbook, for example, and check with the wife before big purchases.
Point being, in games (particularly RPGs) it's a useful thing.
Quote from: Bill;673576One thing I seem to be observing here, is that some gm's are RAW, and others bend rules as they see fit.
That's obvious but leads to my next observation.
Does not a RAW gm control the universe?
Can't a RAW gm get a similar effect to bending rules through the many calls they make all the time?
The gm decides when the lich king sends his death knights to murder the pc's.
The difference is the Law of Unintended Consequences. If the GM doesn't fudge the rules, he lives with things he didn't intend to happen, even if it laters the basic plot of the game (or kills a character is an unentertaining way). If he does, that can be avoided.
Quote from: Bill;673576So I wonder if the raw/notraw thing is really all that big a deal?
Either way works, depending on the group. Either way can epically fail, depending on the group.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;673592Too much RAW influence stifles creativity and turns the game into a series of mechanized auto responses.
For you. I find that if you need to fudge the rules to be creative, you aren't being all that creative. Tastes vary, as do approaches.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;673592Too much freeforming and the game has no structure. At that point the GM might as well just tell the story of what happens.
And some do just that, and are quite happy with it.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;673592Somewhere in between is the sweet spot, with enough rules definition to maintain a consistent game world, leaving room for creativity to create mystery.
The players need to be aware of how the world functions but do not need to be aware of all possibilities.
Unless, of course, they're the sorts who do.
Quote from: mcbobbo;673600We're wandering into that other thread...
But I agree. It's about one thing - discretion. If you don't allow your GM to use it, then he or she is not actually a GM at all.
It sounds like your games are not very creative at all, if you think creativity is about the how the GM fudges the rules. The rules are about how to do things, not what to do.
Quote from: taustin;673674For you. I find that if you need to fudge the rules to be creative, you aren't being all that creative. Tastes vary, as do approaches.
Depends on which rules you are talking about. Fudging combat rules to get a desired outcome certainly. Scrapping the template/monster building rules to create a unique creature not so much.
Quote from: taustin;673674And some do just that, and are quite happy with it.
Yep. More power to them.
Quote from: taustin;673674Unless, of course, they're the sorts who do.
For players who desire to explore a world with a zero unknown factor I can direct them to a number of MMOs and be done with it.
QuoteI find that if you need to fudge the rules to be creative, you aren't being all that creative.
Don't mind Taustin, he's just rounding out his trolling tour.
Quote from: Archangel Fascist;673707Don't mind Taustin, he's just rounding out his trolling tour.
I notice you don't actually disagree with me.
Seriously, dude, if you have to fudge the rules to be creative, at the very least, you've made a very poor choice of game system. Again, the rules cover the how (to do things), the creative part is what (to do) and why. If the rules restrict the what what and why, you're not playing a roleplaying game, you're playing a board game.
I don't see how fudging the rules correlates with creativity. The two seem unrelated; rules adherence seems a product of knowledge and memory.
Quote from: Archangel Fascist;673969I don't see how fudging the rules correlates with creativity. The two seem unrelated; rules adherence seems a product of knowledge and memory.
I suppose one could argue that given two people of equal creative ability within the rules......
If one is allowed to also operate outside the rules, the one restricted by the rules is then creatively stifled in comparison.
Quote from: Archangel Fascist;673969I don't see how fudging the rules correlates with creativity. The two seem unrelated; rules adherence seems a product of knowledge and memory.
I would agree with that more than the argument that you can't be creative if you have to follow the rules, certainly.
Quote from: Bill;674044I suppose one could argue that given two people of equal creative ability within the rules......
If one is allowed to also operate outside the rules, the one restricted by the rules is then creatively stifled in comparison.
Or the one operating within the rules has incentive to be more creative to do what he wants, while still maintaining a consistent structure to the world.
Quote from: taustin;674101Or the one operating within the rules has incentive to be more creative to do what he wants, while still maintaining a consistent structure to the world.
Equal creativity.
Quote from: Bill;674142Equal creativity.
Which is to say, you agree that a GM who does not fudge the rules is not creatively restricted?
Quote from: taustin;674148Which is to say, you agree that a GM who does not fudge the rules is not creatively restricted?
I do not agree with that at all. Constraints by definition restrict creativity.
Two gms.
Both are equally creative when observing RAW.
Now let one of them bend the rules if he chooses to.
The rules bender has more creative options now.
I think the significance and degree of the creative restriction is debatable though.
The issue with this bend in the discussion is there's not really any quantitative way to measure "how creative". Bill, we agree. I see infinitely creative people with more avenues to express it as expressing it more. It's the difference between flashlight and a lantern. The opening on the flashlight means that less overall light gets out, assuming infinite candlepower.
Good luck, sir.
Quote from: Bill;674166I do not agree with that at all. Constraints by definition restrict creativity.
Only if they are contraining the creativity.
Quote from: Bill;674166Two gms.
Both are equally creative when observing RAW.
Your conditions are an artifical contraint on the scenario.
Quote from: taustin;674203Only if they are contraining the creativity.
Your conditions are an artifical contraint on the scenario.
This WTF post of the week is brought to you by.....(Insert product)
:rolleyes:
Quote from: Exploderwizard;674243This WTF post of the week is brought to you by.....(Insert product)
:rolleyes:
The question is whether or not fudging the rules constrains creativity. If your test scenario defines equal creativity
while constrained by the rules, you have created a tautology.
You have defined your position as correct, and used that definition to prove it is correct.
That is a logical error, and makes you look stupid and weak.
Quote from: taustin;674256The question is whether or not fudging the rules constrains creativity. If your test scenario defines equal creativity while constrained by the rules, you have created a tautology.
You have defined your position as correct, and used that definition to prove it is correct.
That is a logical error, and makes you look stupid and weak.
What position?
My comment was made after trying to parse :
Originally Posted by taustin
Only if they are contraining the creativity.
Your conditions are an artifical contraint on the scenario.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;674258What position?
If you don't know, don't ask me.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;674258My comment was made after trying to parse :
Originally Posted by taustin
Only if they are contraining the creativity.
Your conditions are an artifical contraint on the scenario.
So you're reduced to typo flames?
I don't see why someone who is truly creative will need to ignore the rules to be creative.
In fact, I think that transforming a situation as created by the rules into something interesting stimulates creativity more than ignoring them.
When you're in the mountains and you roll a specific random encounter, figuring out why it's there and all the other hundreds of details that make the world seem alive is stimulating - ignoring the tables and just putting something that seems 'appropriate' actually stunts creative expression.
It's like 'Who's Line Is It Anyway'. Sure, you can be creative and make up a skit on your own - but incorporating what someone else is doing beyond your control requires a whole different level of creativity.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;674309I don't see why someone who is truly creative will need to ignore the rules to be creative.
In fact, I think that transforming a situation as created by the rules into something interesting stimulates creativity more than ignoring them.
When you're in the mountains and you roll a specific random encounter, figuring out why it's there and all the other hundreds of details that make the world seem alive is stimulating - ignoring the tables and just putting something that seems 'appropriate' actually stunts creative expression.
Oh fuck, I'm agreeing with a denner?
Somebody just shoot me already.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;672126Let's bring this back to rpgs.
When the fuck was this ever about rpgs?
Rules are just suggestions of ways to handle things to me. I don't care about constraints or creativity, I just do what I like. Because I'm a black-hearted punk who has issues with authority, and the rules are my bitch.
Quote from: taustin;674265If you don't know, don't ask me.
So you're reduced to typo flames?
What flaming. Don't make the mistake of my refusal to debate gibberish as flaming. Carry on.
Quote from: taustin;674256The question is whether or not fudging the rules constrains creativity. If your test scenario defines equal creativity while constrained by the rules, you have created a tautology.
You have defined your position as correct, and used that definition to prove it is correct.
That is a logical error, and makes you look stupid and weak.
That's classic. Really. :)
Quote from: deadDMwalking;674309I don't see why someone who is truly creative will need to ignore the rules to be creative.
In fact, I think that transforming a situation as created by the rules into something interesting stimulates creativity more than ignoring them.
When you're in the mountains and you roll a specific random encounter, figuring out why it's there and all the other hundreds of details that make the world seem alive is stimulating - ignoring the tables and just putting something that seems 'appropriate' actually stunts creative expression.
It's like 'Who's Line Is It Anyway'. Sure, you can be creative and make up a skit on your own - but incorporating what someone else is doing beyond your control requires a whole different level of creativity.
In a way, this is like my preferred approach to science fiction that keeps the science mostly intact. With science, or in this case rules, it is like playing tennis without a net. Much more fun with the net in there.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;674309I don't see why someone who is truly creative will need to ignore the rules to be creative.
In fact, I think that transforming a situation as created by the rules into something interesting stimulates creativity more than ignoring them.
When you're in the mountains and you roll a specific random encounter, figuring out why it's there and all the other hundreds of details that make the world seem alive is stimulating - ignoring the tables and just putting something that seems 'appropriate' actually stunts creative expression.
It's like 'Who's Line Is It Anyway'. Sure, you can be creative and make up a skit on your own - but incorporating what someone else is doing beyond your control requires a whole different level of creativity.
You don't have to bend rules to be creative. But I believe that there are situations where the rules limit creativity in an undesireable manner.
I am not suggesting one cannot be creative within the rules.
Quote from: Bill;674420You don't have to bend rules to be creative. But I believe that there are situations where the rules limit creativity in an undesireable manner.
I'm not really understanding your position on this. Could you give an example of an instance where rules undesireably limit creativity?
Quote from: Bill;674420You don't have to bend rules to be creative. But I believe that there are situations where the rules limit creativity in an undesireable manner.
I am not suggesting one cannot be creative within the rules.
In their defense there was an enormous group of players complaining by the time 4E was being developed about heal rates and needing a cleric. But that was just never an issue for me, and the solution itself seriously challenged my enjoyment of the game. I think it is a case where the designers really need to be careful about addressing longstanding criticisms without thinking through all the implications. You might have twenty percent of the community complaining but there might be a reason the remaining 80 percent are not voicing any concern.
Quote from: Bill;674420You don't have to bend rules to be creative. But I believe that there are situations where the rules limit creativity in an undesireable manner.
I am not suggesting one cannot be creative within the rules.
This. It is an underlying feature of emergent gameplay and doing what the dice dictate should you decide to roll them.
Its easy to make the events in the game world conform to a pre-conceived notion. It takes more creativity to work what emerges naturally from actual play into a logical and consistent campaign.
Quote from: TristramEvans;674335Rules are just suggestions of ways to handle things to me. I don't care about constraints or creativity, I just do what I like. Because I'm a black-hearted punk who has issues with authority, and the rules are my bitch.
What do you do about the jack-booted RAW Police when they show up at your door?
Quote from: jeff37923;674421I'm not really understanding your position on this. Could you give an example of an instance where rules undesireably limit creativity?
Undesireable is very subjective, so lets make that 'Bill thinks it was undesireable'
Some examples:
Player of a Monk wants to use flaming oil on a small pack of zombies and then use his superior running speed to lead the burning pack back to the main hoard of zombies. He wants ti run among them splashing oil. He envisions a massive bonfire of undead that might save countless lives. Rules say Monks can't use oil.
Wizard with necromancy spells that role play wise, is a necromancer. He is adventuring in a region where negative energy is seeping into the world through hidden planar cracks. He asks the gm if he can sense the negative energy at all. No explicit rule allows this.
Character hunts down and catches a creature that has poison. Character wants to take the poison sack and use it to poison his arrows. That particular creatures poison is not on the list of poisons.
Player wants to be the first dwarf ever known in the world to be a wizard.
Is he a gift from the gods? a curse? How did it happen? Why did it happen?
So many potential plot hooks! Dwarves can't be wizards.
Player has a fighter with a shield. He wants to protect his comrade, and asks to forfeit his shield ac bonus to cover his friend. No explicit rule for that.
Character is a Cleric of Law, and his order is opposed to the invasion of chaotic Slaad. He finds a portal to Limbo where the Slaad are entering the world. He wants to alter the portal to dump the Slaad into the Hells instead of his world. Great idea but without a ring of wishes, not much rules support for that.
These are just some things that have come up in dnd games.
Quote from: Bill;674441Undesireable is very subjective, so lets make that 'Bill thinks it was undesireable'
Some examples:
Player of a Monk wants to use flaming oil on a small pack of zombies and then use his superior running speed to lead the burning pack back to the main hoard of zombies. He wants ti run among them splashing oil. He envisions a massive bonfire of undead that might save countless lives. Rules say Monks can't use oil.
This one is easy. "Can't" is a term that is always misinterpreted. Much like a wizard using a battle axe, this one is easy to handle. Sure the monk can carry out this plan. It may even work as intended. The monk will however
earn no XP on the adventure in which this was done.Thus "monks can't use oil" is preserved but the player is not prevented from doing something he obviously
could do to save lives.
Quote from: Bill;674441Wizard with necromancy spells that role play wise, is a necromancer. He is adventuring in a region where negative energy is seeping into the world through hidden planar cracks. He asks the gm if he can sense the negative energy at all. No explicit rule allows this.
Do magic users in the campaign have an innate ability to detect magic in any way? If so, it should be applicable here. If not its time to use the
detect magic spell.
Quote from: Bill;674441Character hunts down and catches a creature that has poison. Character wants to take the poison sack and use it to poison his arrows. That particular creatures poison is not on the list of poisons.
Add it to the list. Use the effect of the poison to assign it properties to bring it in line power wise to established poisons. If it is deemed too nasty to be used as other poisons, limit its viabilty once removed from the creature to a matter of hours.
Quote from: Bill;674441Player wants to be the first dwarf ever known in the world to be a wizard.
Is he a gift from the gods? a curse? How did it happen? Why did it happen?
So many potential plot hooks! Dwarves can't be wizards.
Turn the desire into a quest to find out why. If the player wants to start out being a special snowflake just to play a race/class combo that isn't permitted tough shit, people in hell want icewater.
Quote from: Bill;674441Player has a fighter with a shield. He wants to protect his comrade, and asks to forfeit his shield ac bonus to cover his friend. No explicit rule for that.
If the friend is fighting alongside of the fighter then I would rule that it is possible. On any given round the fighter may give his shield bonus to an adjacent companion so long as it was declared at the start of each round.
Quote from: Bill;674441Character is a Cleric of Law, and his order is opposed to the invasion of chaotic Slaad. He finds a portal to Limbo where the Slaad are entering the world. He wants to alter the portal to dump the Slaad into the Hells instead of his world. Great idea but without a ring of wishes, not much rules support for that.
Why should simply being in opposition to something give you free superpowers to deal with it?
I would rule that a rite or ritual to do such a thing may exist, and that appropriate knowledge and research might grant the ability to try and locate such a thing.
Instant abilities because " I hate chaos" ain't happening.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;674457This one is easy. "Can't" is a term that is always misinterpreted. Much like a wizard using a battle axe, this one is easy to handle. Sure the monk can carry out this plan. It may even work as intended. The monk will however earn no XP on the adventure in which this was done.
Thus "monks can't use oil" is preserved but the player is not prevented from doing something he obviously could do to save lives.
Monks not using oil, or not getting xp when using oil makes no sense.
Likewise a wizard using an axe. Stupid rule.
Do magic users in the campaign have an innate ability to detect magic in any way? If so, it should be applicable here. If not its time to use the detect magic spell.
It may not technically be magic, and it may be too far way for a spell with limited range. I personally would have no problem with letting a necromancer get a bump of direction toward a negative incursion.
Add it to the list. Use the effect of the poison to assign it properties to bring it in line power wise to established poisons. If it is deemed too nasty to be used as other poisons, limit its viabilty once removed from the creature to a matter of hours.
That's my point. You don't let the rules constrain you.
Turn the desire into a quest to find out why. If the player wants to start out being a special snowflake just to play a race/class combo that isn't permitted tough shit, people in hell want icewater.
I dissagree. As a one time campaign event, It makes an interesting character that adds a lot to the game.
Do you assume the player cared about power? He just wanted to roleplay a dwarf that was an outcast because he was born able to use wizardry.
If the friend is fighting alongside of the fighter then I would rule that it is possible. On any given round the fighter may give his shield bonus to an adjacent companion so long as it was declared at the start of each round.
Sure, a reasonable ruling. but its bending the rules.
Why should simply being in opposition to something give you free superpowers to deal with it?
I would rule that a rite or ritual to do such a thing may exist, and that appropriate knowledge and research might grant the ability to try and locate such a thing.
Instant abilities because " I hate chaos" ain't happening.
I view it as an ability the character would likely have, and the rules are never comprehensive in all areas. The ritual does sound like a good way to handle it though. But, the ritual is bending the rules as well.So we at least agree that there are times when the rules need to be bent.
A newbie GM in another forum asked a question that went something like...
"I have a concept for a villain, who I have already statted up the way I want, that I think would be a lot cooler with a devil boar as a pet. Is it okay to cheat and just give it to him, or do I need to find a mechanical way to give it to him?"
Quote from: mcbobbo;674473A newbie GM in another forum asked a question that went something like...
"I have a concept for a villain, who I have already statted up the way I want, that I think would be a lot cooler with a devil boar as a pet. Is it okay to cheat and just give it to him, or do I need to find a mechanical way to give it to him?"
Ouch.
And this is from SKR's 'File Off the Serial Numbers':
"
INTRODUCTION: GRAB A FILE AND GET TO WORK
The key to making your games memorable is being able to think on your feet. Creating NPC stat blocks is a time-consuming task for GMs. This PDF shows you how to use existing monster stat blocks as if they were unique NPC stat blocks. A typical hardcover monster book has 200–300 pages of stat blocks. A clever GM can use many of those monster stat blocks as stand-ins for unusual and higher-level humanoid NPCs. For example, say your party of 5th-level PCs goes in a different direction than you expect, and you suddenly need a CR 5 NPC for the party to fight. A barghest is a Medium CR 5 monster with good physical stats and some magical abilities; by describing the barghest as a "burly cultist," you're able to use the its game stats without your players knowing the barghest's abilities and weaknesses—and you've saved yourself the 30 minutes needed to create a level 6 NPC. That's what this book is for: to help you use stats you already have, so you can save time and focus on running the game and having fun instead of wasting time with math. Just find a monster of the right CR, describe it as an appropriate PC-classed humanoid, and roll with it. Not only does this let you repurpose monsters, it keeps know-it-all players from metagaming monster knowledge based on a creature's description."
After a brilliant freeform session on Tuesday, I have decided to co-opt the term Magical Tea Party and make it mine own (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?696811-4E-DMing-advice&p=17017416#post17017416)! :D
Quote from: Bill;674461Monks not using oil, or not getting xp when using oil makes no sense.
Likewise a wizard using an axe. Stupid rule.
What is the point of ANY class restrictions then. Let paladins be evil, magic users cast in armor, etc. Each class is a different role that that comes with advantages and disadvantages in certain areas. If you want a class based system there need to be reasons why all classes can't do everything.
Quote from: Bill;674461Sure, a reasonable ruling. but its bending the rules.
How? The rules are completely silent on the issue. The whole concept of rulings comes from approaching the game from a stance of "anything the rules do not specifically forbid is possible"
Thus allowing monks to use oil would be bending the rules.
If you approach the game from the perspective of "anything the rules do not specifically allow is forbidden" you will get a lot more moments of game lock-up as things not specifically addressed come up in play. (As your examples prove).
Quote from: Bill;674441Undesireable is very subjective, so lets make that 'Bill thinks it was undesireable'
Some examples:
Player of a Monk wants to use flaming oil on a small pack of zombies and then use his superior running speed to lead the burning pack back to the main hoard of zombies. He wants ti run among them splashing oil. He envisions a massive bonfire of undead that might save countless lives. Rules say Monks can't use oil.
Wizard with necromancy spells that role play wise, is a necromancer. He is adventuring in a region where negative energy is seeping into the world through hidden planar cracks. He asks the gm if he can sense the negative energy at all. No explicit rule allows this.
Character hunts down and catches a creature that has poison. Character wants to take the poison sack and use it to poison his arrows. That particular creatures poison is not on the list of poisons.
Player wants to be the first dwarf ever known in the world to be a wizard.
Is he a gift from the gods? a curse? How did it happen? Why did it happen?
So many potential plot hooks! Dwarves can't be wizards.
Player has a fighter with a shield. He wants to protect his comrade, and asks to forfeit his shield ac bonus to cover his friend. No explicit rule for that.
Character is a Cleric of Law, and his order is opposed to the invasion of chaotic Slaad. He finds a portal to Limbo where the Slaad are entering the world. He wants to alter the portal to dump the Slaad into the Hells instead of his world. Great idea but without a ring of wishes, not much rules support for that.
These are just some things that have come up in dnd games.
Some of this comes down to your choice of ruleset though. All of the things you list above can be accomplished very easily with Other Worlds or indeed many other conflict resolution style games. This is because they are built around the idea of people saying "I use X to do Y, let's discuss what that means' rather than having a load of pre-determined X=Y submechanics and hoping they happen to line up with what happens at the table. I don't need to bend the rules to accomodate this kind of creativity because the rules I have chosen already put that creativity at the heart of the game.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;674495What is the point of ANY class restrictions then. Let paladins be evil, magic users cast in armor, etc. Each class is a different role that that comes with advantages and disadvantages in certain areas. If you want a class based system there need to be reasons why all classes can't do everything.
How? The rules are completely silent on the issue. The whole concept of rulings comes from approaching the game from a stance of "anything the rules do not specifically forbid is possible"
Thus allowing monks to use oil would be bending the rules.
If you approach the game from the perspective of "anything the rules do not specifically allow is forbidden" you will get a lot more moments of game lock-up as things not specifically addressed come up in play. (As your examples prove).
My example of a Monk using oil is far different than a Paladin being evil.
The few times I have let a character do something like; wizard uses a sword, monk use oil, etc...The game was fine. No explosions, everyone was happy.
Not sure what your point is about rules forbidding actions and what my examples prove.
I am a flexable gm, I bend the rules when I feel it is needed, and I never have 'lock up' when I gm.
None of the things I mentioned create problems for me as a gm.
Quote from: soviet;674522Some of this comes down to your choice of ruleset though. All of the things you list above can be accomplished very easily with Other Worlds or indeed many other conflict resolution style games. This is because they are built around the idea of people saying "I use X to do Y, let's discuss what that means' rather than having a load of pre-determined X=Y submechanics and hoping they happen to line up with what happens at the table. I don't need to bend the rules to accomodate this kind of creativity because the rules I have chosen already put that creativity at the heart of the game.
I agree that the rules chosen may prevent a lot of potential problems.
But most rulesets are swiss cheese and people pretend they are the gospel.
When using the imperfect rulesets (nearly all of them) it makes no sense to me to let rules dictate jack squat to the gm.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;674372What flaming. Don't make the mistake of my refusal to debate gibberish as flaming. Carry on.
I've never seen you try to debate anything. Only pontificate, namecall, and generally be obnoxious.
Which, I guess, means I'm your hero.
Quote from: Bill;674420You don't have to bend rules to be creative. But I believe that there are situations where the rules limit creativity in an undesireable manner.
The original premise was that the rules
always limit creativity. I'm not the only one to disagree with that. I'm not the only one to point out that remaining within the rules can, in fact, spur creativity.
You're not backtracking. I doubt you'll admit it.
Quote from: taustin;674549I've never seen you try to debate anything. Only pontificate, namecall, and generally be obnoxious.
Which, I guess, means I'm your hero.
LOL! I suppose you're not paying attention to the issues Bill and I are debating.
Oh wait, that would mean paying attention to posts that don't recognize you as the center of attention.
Run along. Adults are speaking.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;674495How? The rules are completely silent on the issue. The whole concept of rulings comes from approaching the game from a stance of "anything the rules do not specifically forbid is possible"
Thus allowing monks to use oil would be bending the rules.
If you approach the game from the perspective of "anything the rules do not specifically allow is forbidden" you will get a lot more moments of game lock-up as things not specifically addressed come up in play. (As your examples prove).
Can you clarify the above?
Do you mean if the rules are silent on somehting the gm is free to do whatever they like? if so I agree.
However, it seems odd to say the gm may suddenly make shields protect everyone in a city if the gm pleases, but not to let a monk use oil because it is in print.
Sorry if I am misinterpreting you here.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;674556LOL! I suppose you're not paying attention to the issues Bill and I are debating.
I see a lot of noise from you, but nothing that a reasonable person could call "debate."
Quote from: Exploderwizard;674556Run along. Adults are speaking.
You should do that, yes.
Quote from: Bill;674557Can you clarify the above?
Do you mean if the rules are silent on somehting the gm is free to do whatever they like? if so I agree.
However, it seems odd to say the gm may suddenly make shields protect everyone in a city if the gm pleases, but not to let a monk use oil because it is in print.
Sorry if I am misinterpreting you here.
Like any other rule in print, if the group concensus is that it should be ignored because the game is more fun without it then so be it.
The hypothetical situation was that the rule existed and the group agreed to play by it. If the group had elected to nix the restriction then it wouldn't have been an issue at all.
Make sense?
Quote from: taustin;674553The original premise was that the rules always limit creativity. I'm not the only one to disagree with that. I'm not the only one to point out that remaining within the rules can, in fact, spur creativity.
You're not backtracking. I doubt you'll admit it.
Rules do limit creativity. Always. That is an objective fact.
Limit does not mean remove.
Rules can be use creatively; that is also an objective fact, independent from the above.
What is not true, in my opinion, is that using rules spurs greater creativity than using less rules.
What's creates more opportunities for creativity? Paints and a blank canvas, or a color by numbers where you must follow the numbers?
Quote from: Exploderwizard;674560Like any other rule in print, if the group concensus is that it should be ignored because the game is more fun without it then so be it.
The hypothetical situation was that the rule existed and the group agreed to play by it. If the group had elected to nix the restriction then it wouldn't have been an issue at all.
Make sense?
Yes, that makes sense.
Not something I would generally think about, because players seem to like how I bend rules. At least, no one has ever said "Bill! WTF!!!"
Quote from: mcbobbo;674478And this is from SKR's 'File Off the Serial Numbers':
"
INTRODUCTION: GRAB A FILE AND GET TO WORK
The key to making your games memorable is being able to think on your feet. Creating NPC stat blocks is a time-consuming task for GMs. This PDF shows you how to use existing monster stat blocks as if they were unique NPC stat blocks. A typical hardcover monster book has 200–300 pages of stat blocks. A clever GM can use many of those monster stat blocks as stand-ins for unusual and higher-level humanoid NPCs. For example, say your party of 5th-level PCs goes in a different direction than you expect, and you suddenly need a CR 5 NPC for the party to fight. A barghest is a Medium CR 5 monster with good physical stats and some magical abilities; by describing the barghest as a "burly cultist," you're able to use the its game stats without your players knowing the barghest's abilities and weaknesses—and you've saved yourself the 30 minutes needed to create a level 6 NPC. That's what this book is for: to help you use stats you already have, so you can save time and focus on running the game and having fun instead of wasting time with math. Just find a monster of the right CR, describe it as an appropriate PC-classed humanoid, and roll with it. Not only does this let you repurpose monsters, it keeps know-it-all players from metagaming monster knowledge based on a creature's description."
"Just use Quartermaster Form QB2732N, and write in 'pizza oven' where it says 'machine gun.'"
Quote from: mcbobbo;674478And this is from SKR's 'File Off the Serial Numbers':
"
INTRODUCTION: GRAB A FILE AND GET TO WORK
The key to making your games memorable is being able to think on your feet. Creating NPC stat blocks is a time-consuming task for GMs. This PDF shows you how to use existing monster stat blocks as if they were unique NPC stat blocks. A typical hardcover monster book has 200–300 pages of stat blocks. A clever GM can use many of those monster stat blocks as stand-ins for unusual and higher-level humanoid NPCs. For example, say your party of 5th-level PCs goes in a different direction than you expect, and you suddenly need a CR 5 NPC for the party to fight. A barghest is a Medium CR 5 monster with good physical stats and some magical abilities; by describing the barghest as a "burly cultist," you're able to use the its game stats without your players knowing the barghest's abilities and weaknesses—and you've saved yourself the 30 minutes needed to create a level 6 NPC. That's what this book is for: to help you use stats you already have, so you can save time and focus on running the game and having fun instead of wasting time with math. Just find a monster of the right CR, describe it as an appropriate PC-classed humanoid, and roll with it. Not only does this let you repurpose monsters, it keeps know-it-all players from metagaming monster knowledge based on a creature's description."
This should be something like that "What Men Know About Women" book, which consisted of blank pages.
Basically just same sentence for 200 pages "Just swap the names dummy".
Quote from: Bill;674562Rules do limit creativity. Always. That is an objective fact.
Limit does not mean remove.
Rules can be use creatively; that is also an objective fact, independent from the above.
What is not true, in my opinion, is that using rules spurs greater creativity than using less rules.
What's creates more opportunities for creativity? Paints and a blank canvas, or a color by numbers where you must follow the numbers?
Isn't it also a truism though that for most people restrictions
breed creativity? Sure in theory a blank piece of paper gives you the most freedom to think up stuff, but in reality telling people to paint a particular subject or in a particular style tends to be much more inspiring by giving you a baseline to work from.
Quote from: soviet;674596Isn't it also a truism though that for most people restrictions breed creativity? Sure in theory a blank piece of paper gives you the most freedom to think up stuff, but in reality telling people to paint a particular subject or in a particular style tends to be much more inspiring by giving you a baseline to work from.
I think what you're going for is more toward the
necessity is the mother of invention angle.
Which is quite accurate for the subject matter when you consider the most basic of rules a necessity for gameplay that GMs and players can both relate to.
Quote from: soviet;674596Isn't it also a truism though that for most people restrictions breed creativity? Sure in theory a blank piece of paper gives you the most freedom to think up stuff, but in reality telling people to paint a particular subject or in a particular style tends to be much more inspiring by giving you a baseline to work from.
Depends on the restrictions.
Tic tac toe is very restrictive.
Free form roleplay is possibly too unrestricted.
But I see your point.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;674605I think what you're going for is more toward the necessity is the mother of invention angle.
Which is quite accurate for the subject matter when you consider the most basic of rules a necessity for gameplay that GMs and players can both relate to.
My reply below applies here as well. You guys make a good point.
Quote from: taustin;674553The original premise was that the rules always limit creativity.
I doubt they
always limit creativity, simply because few statements like that are universally true. However, rules certainly can limit creativity. Here's one example, if you play AD&D by Gygax's rules that forbid NPCs from selling magic items to PCs, you cannot create a PC magic item merchant -- which is certainly a limit on player creativity (and on GM creatively as this provision rules out lots of settings).
Generally (and in my experience), the more rules there are in a game system (especially nit-picky ones), the more the GM and Players are constrained to play in settings and styles close to those of the game designer. Whether you consider this a limit of creativity or not is personal opinion. I certainly do consider it a limit on creativity -- especially in games like TSR D&D which are supposed to be open to whatever setting the GM can dream up.
Quote from: RandallS;674631I doubt they always limit creativity, simply because few statements like that are universally true. However, rules certainly can limit creativity. Here's one example, if you play AD&D by Gygax's rules that forbid NPCs from selling magic items to PCs, you cannot create a PC magic item merchant -- which is certainly a limit on player creativity (and on GM creatively as this provision rules out lots of settings).
Generally (and in my experience), the more rules there are in a game system (especially nit-picky ones), the more the GM and Players are constrained to play in settings and styles close to those of the game designer. Whether you consider this a limit of creativity or not is personal opinion. I certainly do consider it a limit on creativity -- especially in games like TSR D&D which are supposed to be open to whatever setting the GM can dream up.
I agree, and I should have said nearly always instead of always.
Quote from: RandallS;674631I doubt they always limit creativity, simply because few statements like that are universally true. However, rules certainly can limit creativity. Here's one example, if you play AD&D by Gygax's rules that forbid NPCs from selling magic items to PCs, you cannot create a PC magic item merchant -- which is certainly a limit on player creativity (and on GM creatively as this provision rules out lots of settings).
But doesn't this situation only come about because the rules for gold pieces and magic items combine to create a need for this NPC in the first place?
Quote from: RandallS;674631I doubt they always limit creativity,
There's no doubt in my mind that it's not true. But that
was the original premise.
Quote from: RandallS;674631Generally (and in my experience), the more rules there are in a game system (especially nit-picky ones), the more the GM and Players are constrained to play in settings and styles close to those of the game designer.
In my experience, the more restrictive the rules are (in a game or anywhere else is life), the more creative people get in finding ways around them.
Perhaps the people I hang with are just more rebellious than the people you hang with.
This thread disappointed me because it led me to, for a moment, wonder if there was indeed a Magic Tea Party RPG.
That would have set my Pony-watching, Blue Rose-worshiping, Still-In-The-Throes-of-the-Princess-Phase-In-My-Twenties heart all aflutter.
Quote from: LibraryLass;674846This thread disappointed me because it led me to, for a moment, wonder if there was indeed a Magic Tea Party RPG.
That would have set my Pony-watching, Blue Rose-worshiping, Still-In-The-Throes-of-the-Princess-Phase-In-My-Twenties heart all aflutter.
I have never had a Magic Tea Party in a dnd game.
Maybe use Leprechauns?
Quote from: LibraryLass;674846This thread disappointed me because it led me to, for a moment, wonder if there was indeed a Magic Tea Party RPG.
That would have set my Pony-watching, Blue Rose-worshiping, Still-In-The-Throes-of-the-Princess-Phase-In-My-Twenties heart all aflutter.
Clearly the answer is to make a MTP Rpg. That way, whenever someone at TBP or TGD accuses someone of playing that style, it will be like, "What are you talking about? We play D&D, we don't play MTP (pointing them to the actual game)."
Quote from: Bill;674887I have never had a Magic Tea Party in a dnd game.
Maybe use Leprechauns?
You never got to play the EX modules for AD&D?
You missed out on some good stuff including a magical tea party, a jabberwock, and snicker-snack!
Quote from: Exploderwizard;674893You never got to play the EX modules for AD&D?
You missed out on some good stuff including a magical tea party, a jabberwock, and snicker-snack!
You know, I can recall playing in a module where we met leprechauns in a wizards lair with teleport doors everywhere. Was there tea party there?
Quote from: Bill;674887I have never had a Magic Tea Party in a dnd game.
I'm imagining a sort of Deck-Of-Many-Things or drink-from-the-fountain scenario where on a 18-20 you get your Constitution raised by 1 and on a 1-3 you get your legs turned to 1d3 tentacles each.
Quote from: Bill;674887I have never had a Magic Tea Party in a dnd game.
Maybe use Leprechauns?
I'm not sure I have a grinder big enough fit on in to, and they don't steep well if not reduced to a powder.
Quote from: taustin;674953I'm not sure I have a grinder big enough fit on in to, and they don't steep well if not reduced to a powder.
Also it is CRITICAL that you recover the pot of gold before you grind the Leprechaun into tea powder.
Quote from: Bill;674955Also it is CRITICAL that you recover the pot of gold before you grind the Leprechaun into tea powder.
Yeah, I saw the episode of House where the woman was suffering from gold poisoning.
Quote from: Sommerjon;673434Rules being over-ruled by an arbiter means there are no rules for the arbiter.
That's the issue for some people.
The players have to follow the rules, the arbiter not so much.
Cue "good gms blah, blah, blah." and other hair-splitting.
Yes, that's absolutely right. There are no rules for the GM in the RPG. The GM is god. That's part of how RPGs work. ALL rules for him are just suggestions.
That's true in any RPG that is a real RPG and its stupid to think otherwise.
RPGPundit
Not to derail too much, but have you considered switching your blog to Wordpress? Xanga is so...high school 2001. Wordpress generally allows a cleaner presentation and looks more professional.
Quote from: Archangel Fascist;675402Not to derail too much, but have you considered switching your blog to Wordpress? Xanga is so...high school 2001. Wordpress generally allows a cleaner presentation and looks more professional.
I am going to move the one blog of mine hosted there, but not right now; I've more pressing concerns to handle, so I'm aiming at moving it sometime during the Autumn season.
Quote from: Archangel Fascist;675402Not to derail too much, but have you considered switching your blog to Wordpress? Xanga is so...high school 2001. Wordpress generally allows a cleaner presentation and looks more professional.
I don't really care; it seems to have worked fine for me.
RPGPundit
Quote from: Sommerjon;673434Rules being over-ruled by an arbiter means there are no rules for the arbiter.
That's the issue for some people.
The players have to follow the rules, the arbiter not so much.
Cue "good gms blah, blah, blah." and other hair-splitting.
Socially it is the referee's table not the players. After it all said and done the players only choice is to decide whether to show up for that game or not. And the choice is one that is made for many reason and the issue you are bringing up is just one of several that could factor in. In different degrees of importance for various individuals.
And the issue of arbitrary referees is largely a phantom one. Oh it gets talked about a lot both in the letter page/forums of Dragon Magazine in the early days and on the Internet today. But for most gamers and most gaming situations it is a non-issue compared to others particularly where they personally like the referee or not.
The only area where it even a true concern is organized play simply because of how this aspect of roleplaying games is managed. And that unfortunately got baked into D&D 4e to its detriment along with other organized play issues that should not been part of a general release of a RPG.
The simple fact is that the human referee is both the weakness and strength of tabletop RPGs. A weakness because referee are only human, a strength because out of all the other forms of roleplaying it is only with tabletop where the full range of human imagination gets free reign.
Quote from: RPGPundit;675319Yes, that's absolutely right. There are no rules for the GM in the RPG. The GM is god. That's part of how RPGs work. ALL rules for him are just suggestions.
That's true in any RPG that is a real RPG and its stupid to think otherwise.
RPGPundit
Agreed.
I have met people that seem to think the rules have better judgement than a gm though. Seems irrational to me.
Good rules are good suggestions. Ignoring good suggestions is a bad sign.
If there is any discussion of 'DMs can and/or should ignore rules', it's bad to ignore a discussion of why they should change the rules. In general, it's a bad idea because most of the reasons a DM is tempted to change the rules are bad.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;675872Good rules are good suggestions. Ignoring good suggestions is a bad sign.
If there is any discussion of 'DMs can and/or should ignore rules', it's bad to ignore a discussion of why they should change the rules. In general, it's a bad idea because most of the reasons a DM is tempted to change the rules are bad.
Even rules that are mostly good can use some lattitude in interpretation. It is far more important that actual play be conducted in the spirit of the rules instead of the precise wording.
This doesn't mean rules get changed. The rule may remain in place even if a particular application of it gets interpreted differently via a ruling due to extreme circumstances.
There is no ruleset that is completely immune to exploitive shenannigans. Because of this, rulings can be beneficial to even the most complex rulesets, not to make rampant sweeping changes, but to ensure the spirit of the existing rules are maintained.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;675872Good rules are good suggestions. Ignoring good suggestions is a bad sign.
Generally, I ignore or change rules in advance for one or more the following reasons:
a) The rule provides a procedure that is too complex and/or time-consuming for how (un)important what it covers is in my campaign and/or play style.
b) The rule does not fit my setting or play style as written.
c) Either I or my player do not like the rule.
Rules are ignored or modified in play when a specific situation comes up where applying the rules produces a result that goes against the established setting reality in my opinion as GM.
QuoteIn general, it's a bad idea because most of the reasons a DM is tempted to change the rules are bad.
Whether a reason for changing the rules is good or bad is seldom objective truth. For example, Person A believes setting and play style ALWAYS trump the rules-as-written. Person B believes that setting and play style should ALWAYS be changed to match the rules-as-written. Person B will probably see every change Person A makes to the rules as bad while person A will see them as good. There is no objective good or bad here, it's all subjective -- even with both parties claim their position is position is the objectively true position.
Quote from: RandallS;675909Whether a reason for changing the rules is good or bad is seldom objective truth. For example, Person A believes setting and play style ALWAYS trump the rules-as-written. Person B believes that setting and play style should ALWAYS be changed to match the rules-as-written. Person B will probably see every change Person A makes to the rules as bad while person A will see them as good. There is no objective good or bad here, it's all subjective -- even with both parties claim their position is position is the objectively true position.
Sure, I'll grant that whether every change is good or bad is 'subjective'. But there are lots of situations where I think a solid majority would agree that a change is bad.
For example, while there are people that think changing the rules to achieve a desired outcome is good, most people here on these boards would probably disagree. If you want to achieve a specific outcome, play a storygame!
Quote from: deadDMwalking;675937Sure, I'll grant that whether every change is good or bad is 'subjective'. But there are lots of situations where I think a solid majority would agree that a change is bad.
I will not argue that, but the only majority that really matters is the majority at the table using the house rules. If those playing at my table think house rule X is good, what does it matter if 3.99 million of the 4 million RPGs players in the world (pulling these numbers out of thin air as examples) think it is a horrible rule that they would never use?
QuoteFor example, while there are people that think changing the rules to achieve a desired outcome is good, most people here on these boards would probably disagree.
You're right. I wouldn't use such a rule (nor, I suspect, would most other posters here), but that does not make it a bad rule (especially not an objectively bad rule), especially if those using it like it and find it enhances their game.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;675937Sure, I'll grant that whether every change is good or bad is 'subjective'. But there are lots of situations where I think a solid majority would agree that a change is bad.
For example, while there are people that think changing the rules to achieve a desired outcome is good, most people here on these boards would probably disagree. If you want to achieve a specific outcome, play a storygame!
Sometimes rules are just bad.
In 4E dnd, for example, the only creature in the multiverse that resists being pushed back is a Dwarf. Not Giants, not Dragons.
Just Dwarves.
So 4E rules missed the detail that large creatures would reduce how far they get pushed.
If a gm told me large creatures get a -1, huge -2 etc.. on resisting, or even how far they can push smaller beings, I would say "Sounds good to me"
I would only complain if the gm was adjusting to protect a pet npc, or 'hurt' a character, or something extreme like that.
Quote from: Bill;675979I would only complain if the gm was adjusting to protect a pet npc, or 'hurt' a character, or something extreme like that.
That's what I've seen the most. The DM thinks that something 'shouldn't work that way' because it has an effect that they don't like - a planned recurring villain gets taken down too quickly and easily, for instance - and suddenly they're changing the rules to prevent that outcome.
The consequences of doing so usually far outweigh the benefits.
Now, I agree that there can be issues with character abilities being 'too powerful' for the game you want to play or run. An 'I win' button doesn't make for interesting or immersive game play. But don't change the rules in the middle of the game. Either figure it out in the beginning or offer the player a compromise. And I'm not just talking about 3.x optimization - a character spends 6 levels struggling as a low-level wizard in 2nd edition and they start to actually have world-altering power - now is not the time to start nerfing them.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;675985That's what I've seen the most. The DM thinks that something 'shouldn't work that way' because it has an effect that they don't like - a planned recurring villain gets taken down too quickly and easily, for instance - and suddenly they're changing the rules to prevent that outcome.
.
This is something I saw a lot more of when I was younger and just do not see much anymore these days. None of the GMs i play with now worry about protecting npcs. I am sure it occurs, but that isnt the sort of situation people have in mind when they talk about overiding the rules. I pretty much do things by the book 99.9% of the time. But there are occassions when the rules dont fit well with events in the game. they may work fine in almost every case, but when they fall short, i have no problem ignoring thm or taking another path. Sure if you are doing it to screw the players or protect an npc, that isnt a good call, but if you are doing it to accomodate the group's style of play, i do not see an issue. And i just need to restate, i do believe in using rules and in applying them consistently. I am talking about edge cases here.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;675985That's what I've seen the most. The DM thinks that something 'shouldn't work that way' because it has an effect that they don't like - a planned recurring villain gets taken down too quickly and easily, for instance - and suddenly they're changing the rules to prevent that outcome.
I just don't see much of this and never have -- at least not with adult players and GMs. The only place I've ever seen this regularly was GMs running heavily railroaded modules where the module did not allow the early death of an NPC (without the module completely derailing). Many of these adventures would even tell GMs to do anything to keep certain NPCs alive and active.
I have no problem about discussing about when and why a GM could change the rules, or when they shouldn't, in the sense of "Good GMing skill-development". The problem I have is with the suggestion that the GM cannot in fact change any rule he wants (regardless of the discussion of whether or not it would be a good idea to do so).
RPGPundit
Taken to an extreme, you wouldn't consider someone changing most rules to be playing D&D anymore. The specific point where it becomes a 'different game' might vary from person to person, but if you're not planning on cleaving close to the established rules, it makes sense to find a game that's more your style.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;676541Taken to an extreme, you wouldn't consider someone changing most rules to be playing D&D anymore. The specific point where it becomes a 'different game' might vary from person to person, but if you're not planning on cleaving close to the established rules, it makes sense to find a game that's more your style.
Why?
I know (TSR) D&D well. I own lots of stuff for it. I have years of experience running D&D and tailoring the rules of D&D to suit my needs. While should I waste hundreds of hours of time (and probably many hundreds of dollars) buying and reading lots of different fantasy RPGs hoping that one will be so close to what I want that I can use it RAW? Especially when I know from all the fantasy RPGs I bought in the 1970s and 1980s that this is extremely unlikely to happen and at best I'll find a few ideas in another game I want to adapt to my personal version of D&D.
I could save almost all of that research time and save all that money, just by spending 10-20 hours writing whatever new rules I need for my campaign and group for whatever version of TSR D&D seems best for the game. It often doesn't even take that long as I have house rule documents dating back to 1975 to draw on.
Part of it, of course, might be that I've never seen any benefit to playing RAW in any RPG. I see all RPGs as guidelines/toolkits for the GM to built the game the GM and his players want. I guess am just a DIYer when it comes to RPGs. I'd rather spend some time customizing the rules and have the result be 97-98% of what I want instead of settling for 80% or so of what I want RAW. I'd rather use rules I know well but have to customize than spend lots of time and money chasing a set that might be 95% of what I want as written.
Another part of it is definitely that I started playing in 1975 with the little brown box which was clearly described as guidelines for the GM that GM was expected to customize for his campaign. I don't want to play in the game designer's world with the game designer's players and their preferred style. I want to play in my world, with my players and our preferred style.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;676541Taken to an extreme, you wouldn't consider someone changing most rules to be playing D&D anymore. The specific point where it becomes a 'different game' might vary from person to person, but if you're not planning on cleaving close to the established rules, it makes sense to find a game that's more your style.
Let me put it this way: I (and many others) want to play MY version of D&D/Warhammer/RuneQuest/CoC etc etc. I don't care that Drizzt was lvl 13 Ranger rather than lvl 12, or that there weren't official Hussite Wars in the WFRP's Empire, just like the weapon list is poor and in places (mostly firearms), absurdly stupid. You know Monster Manual backwards? Too bad, black dragons spit lighting not acid, should've listened to what that weary adventurer was talking about. What, Cthulhu is thirty foot tall and has tentacles where his mouth is? Boy, what's your Cthulhu Mythos skill? Zero? Yeah, I thought so.
I don't care it's not "brand X", it's my X. 5 minutes conversation solves any "lure and bait" issues, and I game mostly with friends, people who I'm glad to meet anyway, or who trust me that I will deliver good enough GMing (I'm no perfect man), that really, the logo on system's rulebook doesn't matter that much.
The whole "War on Houserules" and attempts to somehow undermine the idea of them are bollocks. Common tactics I've found are appealing to the industry ("Why don't you buy new RPGs? Why do you think one RPG should last a lifetime? Why do you hate RPGs so much that you hurt the industry?") or pretending it's "chiseling in shit" because they want to turn the tables and feel smug on those who are "Roleplayers not Rollplayers" - doing of course, exactly the same thing that drove them to their extremes, giving good old History another ironic spin.
That said - I have a few favourite systems, that I like to mod. I'd not take D&D mechanics for CoC game, but I can understand the appeal of doing so.
Quote from: RPGPundit;675319Yes, that's absolutely right. There are no rules for the GM in the RPG. The GM is god. That's part of how RPGs work. ALL rules for him are just suggestions.
That's true in any RPG that is a real RPG and its stupid to think otherwise.
RPGPundit
:rotfl:
And yet you get your panties all twisted up when you here
Magical Tea Party or
Mother May I or
Simon Says.
Real RPG :rolleyes: So glad you are here to set them theres fake make-believers straight.
Quote from: Sommerjon;676870:rotfl:
And yet you get your panties all twisted up when you here Magical Tea Party or Mother May I or Simon Says.
Personally I'm ok with Simon Says. :D
Not just because it's my name; the other two seem deliberately derogatory. I'm not your mother and I'm not a little girl.
Quote from: Sommerjon;676870:rotfl:
And yet you get your panties all twisted up when you here Magical Tea Party or Mother May I or Simon Says.
Real RPG :rolleyes: So glad you are here to set them theres fake make-believers straight.
That there are no rules for the GM that he himself doesn't govern (rather than be bound by), doesn't mean that there aren't rules.
Quote from: RPGPundit;677400That there are no rules for the GM that he himself doesn't govern (rather than be bound by), doesn't mean that there aren't rules.
Thankfully this mindset has been declining steadily since the early 80s. Another couple decades and it will be gone, with the hobby sighing the greatest sigh of relief since the beginning of the hobby.
People are so concerned with letting bad GMs have power they are willing ( possibly in ignorance more than anything) of removing a good GM's ability to supersede " the rules" in awesomeness. And that makes me sad.
They clearly have no idea what they're missing.
Quote from: Sommerjon;677596Thankfully this mindset has been declining steadily since the early 80s. Another couple decades and it will be gone, with the hobby sighing the greatest sigh of relief since the beginning of the hobby.
Fortunately, that's unlikely to happen as people like me are training a new generation of gamers to treat tabletop RPG rules as merely "guidelines for the GM" when they GM.
Quote from: RandallS;677617Fortunately, that's unlikely to happen as people like me are training a new generation of gamers to treat tabletop RPG rules as merely "guidelines for the GM" when they GM.
the popularity of the OSR seems to point to the direction that it's not declining. Thankfully. Rules can't fix bad DMs because bad DMs will always find a way to hurt the experience. That's why they are bad. Perhaps instead of catering to the lowest common denominator, game designers encourage players to either use a different DM, or try it themselves rather than bitch about something they weren't willing to do themselves
Quote from: TristramEvans;677610People are so concerned with letting bad GMs have power they are willing ( possibly in ignorance more than anything) of removing a good GM's ability to supersede "the rules" in awesomeness. And that makes me sad.
They clearly have no idea what they're missing.
Interesting. For all the talk around this place about rulings not rules, we get this thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=27245)
Pundies "There are no rules for the GM in the RPG" this thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=24408&highlight=cheating) would really beg to differ on that absurdity.
Quote from: RandallS;677617Fortunately, that's unlikely to happen as people like me are training a new generation of gamers to treat tabletop RPG rules as merely "guidelines for the GM" when they GM.
:rolleyes: That goes against everything you have said about your group.
Quote from: Sommerjon;677762Interesting. For all the talk around this place about rulings not rules, we get this thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=27245)
Pundies "There are no rules for the GM in the RPG" this thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=24408&highlight=cheating) would really beg to differ on that absurdity.
Well I can't say I read all of both threads, but picked up the gist of how the conversation went. However, I don't know that I understand what implication or Inference I should be taking from them. In other words, I can't quite pick up what you're putting down.
Quote from: Sommerjon;677762:rolleyes: That goes against everything you have said about your group.
Perhaps in your mind. However, I was not just talking about my group, but about my Microlite74 games which have been used to introduce a large number of players in many parts of the world, both new and old, to the "GM is in charge" style of play.
Quote from: Sommerjon;677762Interesting. For all the talk around this place about rulings not rules, we get this thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=27245)
Pundies "There are no rules for the GM in the RPG" this thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=24408&highlight=cheating) would really beg to differ on that absurdity.
The thing to understand about rulings is that they do not replace rules in any kind of total capacity (at least not for me).
The basic rules are the foundation of the building. Rulings serve as mortar to filling in any gaps and cracks left by the basic rules.
The first thread you linked is an example of a situation where the rules already provided the answer. The player was trying to gain advantage by appealing to a ruling that IMHO didn't require a ruling.
The second thread is a good example of why I DO believe there are some rules for GMs. These rules aren't system specific and have more to do with the social contract and general fair play.
Quote from: Sommerjon;677596Thankfully this mindset has been declining steadily since the early 80s. Another couple decades and it will be gone, with the hobby sighing the greatest sigh of relief since the beginning of the hobby.
On the contrary, more and more gamers are asking what, exactly, tabletop RPGs provide that CRPGs and MMORPGs can't. The inevitable conclusion is flexibility.
Quote from: Sommerjon;677596Thankfully this mindset has been declining steadily since the early 80s. Another couple decades and it will be gone, with the hobby sighing the greatest sigh of relief since the beginning of the hobby.
We'll cut our own throats and sing praises as the few best things in RPGs, the flexibility, will go up in flames, and we'll call that progress.
Quote from: Haffrung;678104On the contrary, more and more gamers are asking what, exactly, tabletop RPGs provide that CRPGs and MMORPGs can't. The inevitable conclusion is flexibility.
Wasn't saying that RPGs were dieing I was saying that the mindset of "Real RPGs, Rulings not Rules, When in doubt roll on a random chart" is dieing out.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;677817The thing to understand about rulings is that they do not replace rules in any kind of total capacity (at least not for me).
The basic rules are the foundation of the building. Rulings serve as mortar to filling in any gaps and cracks left by the basic rules.
The first thread you linked is an example of a situation where the rules already provided the answer. The player was trying to gain advantage by appealing to a ruling that IMHO didn't require a ruling.
The second thread is a good example of why I DO believe there are some rules for GMs. These rules aren't system specific and have more to do with the social contract and general fair play.
That is one of the funny things about this place. You all don't actually agree on what it means.
Quote from: Sommerjon;678254That is one of the funny things about this place. You all don't actually agree on what it means.
Who disagrees with what he just said? Because the phrase comes from one specific place and has always had one specific meaning. I've never seen anyone give a different one.
Quote from: Sommerjon;678254That is one of the funny things about this place. You all don't actually agree on what it means.
Why on earth would we?
That's the beauty of having your own brain and differing experiences and expectations.
Quote from: Sommerjon;678254That is one of the funny things about this place. You all don't actually agree on what it means.
Please clarify the exact "it" you are talking about. Thanks.
Quote from: One Horse Town;678319Why on earth would we?
That's the beauty of having your own brain and differing experiences and expectations.
Well it does make discourse a little trickier than it might be.
Quote from: LibraryLass;678568Well it does make discourse a little trickier than it might be.
Owl?
Quote from: One Horse Town;678585Owl?
Banana
Quote from: One Horse Town;678319Why on earth would we?
That's the beauty of having your own brain and differing experiences and expectations.
We're all individuals (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVygqjyS4CA)!
Quote from: Exploderwizard;678327Please clarify the exact "it" you are talking about. Thanks.
Rulings not rules.
Quote from: Sommerjon;678740Rulings not rules.
This is the long and the short of it...
Quote from: The Old School PrimerMost of the time in old-style gaming, you don’t use a rule; you make a ruling. It’s easy to understand that sentence, but it takes a flash of insight to really “get it.” The players can describe any action, without needing to look at a character sheet to see if they “can” do it. The referee, in turn, uses common sense to decide what happens or rolls a die if he thinks there’s some random element involved, and then the game moves on. This is why characters have so few numbers on the character sheet, and why they have so few specified abilities.
There's no other definition. If someone's saying any different they're mistaken. There does seem to be a number of people who don't "get it", though these tend IME to be the same people who obsess about mechanical balance and are pissed off that 4th edition was cancelled; in other words people who don't like or have a grudge towards old school gaming. There's also a few of the "You Can Never Say Any Edition of D&D Does Anything That 4th Edition Isn't As Good At Or I'll Take It As A Personal Attack!"-types at TBP.
Quote from: Sommerjon;678740Rulings not rules.
See post # 295. :)
To expand a bit more. The more rules volume and complexity there is, the fewer the amount of rulings there will be.
With this increase in rules volume comes a few disadvantages.
1) Once rules glut gets to a certain point, it becomes more difficult to remember when to use them and looking stuff up bogs down play.
2) Rules begin to dominate play. The game becomes more about what a player
can do via the rules than about what the players are actually doing in the campaign.
3) Flexibility is lessened. Instead of the rules being a definition of what isn't generally possible, they become a defining list of what IS possible. The net result is a rules culture that says if the rules didn't think of it then neither can you.
4) Content bloat, unchecked, can lead to some rules that in general, aren't bad, but followed to the letter lead to some ridiculous results .
There is no rules system that can prevent someone from being a dick. Games that promise some sort of inherent balance that will somehow prevent this are selling snake oil. So long as the game is being played by people, the majority of game balance will have to come from those people.
Personally, if a game is written with the assumption that everyone will be a dick just because they can be, I won't like it very much because I don't care for the assumptions that it makes about me or those I choose to game with.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;6788352) Rules begin to dominate play. The game becomes more about what a player can do via the rules than about what the players are actually doing in the campaign.
This is a huge issue for me. I play rpg's to see what happens to the characters in the campaign. The rules are not the game to me; the rules are a tool to facilitate seeing the events of the campaign unfold as unobtrusively as possible.
If I want to play rules, I can enjoy a nice fleet battle in Star Fleet Battles.
Or chess. Chess rocks.
Quote from: Bill;678840This is a huge issue for me. I play rpg's to see what happens to the characters in the campaign. The rules are not the game to me; the rules are a tool to facilitate seeing the events of the campaign unfold as unobtrusively as possible.
This is why I no longer run system that fixate players attention on builds, what kinds of "stuff" they get at each new level, and the numbers they can crunch via mechanical masturbation, as the dominating focus of the game.
Quote from: Bill;678840This is a huge issue for me. I play rpg's to see what happens to the characters in the campaign. The rules are not the game to me; the rules are a tool to facilitate seeing the events of the campaign unfold as unobtrusively as possible.
If I want to play rules, I can enjoy a nice fleet battle in Star Fleet Battles.
Or chess. Chess rocks.
No doubt but its the right balance that gets everyone tripped up. Nothing shocking in that statement but always a fine line to tread.
Quote from: Willmark;678866No doubt but its the right balance that gets everyone tripped up. Nothing shocking in that statement but always a fine line to tread.
In my experience many games drift toward rules becoming intrusive.
I respect what 4e tried to do, as I understand it anyway. But people aren't computers. So while a highly codified system is essential for a CRPG, it fails in the real world.
As examples look at law or language. These are human systems that evolve over time, and are closer to the spirit of the RPG.
Quote from: mcbobbo;678879I respect what 4e tried to do
I don't. It was painfully stupid.
Quote from: TristramEvans;678760This is the long and the short of it...
There's no other definition. If someone's saying any different they're mistaken. There does seem to be a number of people who don't "get it", though these tend IME to be the same people who obsess about mechanical balance and are pissed off that 4th edition was cancelled; in other words people who don't like or have a grudge towards old school gaming. There's also a few of the "You Can Never Say Any Edition of D&D Does Anything That 4th Edition Isn't As Good At Or I'll Take It As A Personal Attack!"-types at TBP.
It's unfortunate, you had a decent thought but you couldn't stop yourself from shitting.:(
Having to ask if they can do something is what people are tired of.
Quote from: Sommerjon;679235It's unfortunate, you had a decent thought but you couldn't stop yourself from shitting.:(
I don't understand that statement. Though it is true I often post from the crapper on my iPhone. Enjoy that mental image.
QuoteHaving to ask if they can do something is what people are tired of.
Well, I have no idea who these people are you speak of, but my players don't ask to do something, they describe what they are attempting to do. As a GM, my rulings are thus based on 3 basic questions:
Is this something they could accomplish without substantial risk? If yes, then the action resolves as per the player's intentions; if not, then...
Is this possible? If not, I'll tell the player and explain why. Depending on the circumstances this may mean automatic failure, or I may give the player the chance to revise their approach. If it is possible then...
How difficult is this? This is where system enters play. If the system doesn't cover that situation (or I think it will interfere with the flow of the game to look it up) , then I wing it. Otherwise I default to how the system would handle it, or the closest approximate situation.
That's really all there is to it. And it takes like 1000x longer to type out than it does to resolve it in my head during play.
Quote from: TristramEvans;679250I don't understand that statement. Though it is true I often post from the crapper on my iPhone. Enjoy that mental image.
There's no other definition. If someone's saying any different they're mistaken. Fine so far.
There does seem to be a number of people who don't "get it", though these tend IME to be the same people who obsess about mechanical balance and are pissed off that 4th edition was cancelled; in other words people who don't like or have a grudge towards old school gaming. There's also a few of the "You Can Never Say Any Edition of D&D Does Anything That 4th Edition Isn't As Good At Or I'll Take It As A Personal Attack!"-types at TBP. And there's the shitting.
Quote from: TristramEvans;679250Well, I have no idea who these people are you speak of, but my players don't ask to do something, they describe what they are attempting to do. As a GM, my rulings are thus based on 3 basic questions:
Is this something they could accomplish without substantial risk? If yes, then the action resolves as per the player's intentions; if not, then...
Is this possible? If not, I'll tell the player and explain why. Depending on the circumstances this may mean automatic failure, or I may give the player the chance to revise their approach. If it is possible then...
How difficult is this? This is where system enters play. If the system doesn't cover that situation (or I think it will interfere with the flow of the game to look it up) , then I wing it. Otherwise I default to how the system would handle it, or the closest approximate situation.
That's really all there is to it. And it takes like 1000x longer to type out than it does to resolve it in my head during play.
Like I said they have to ask for your blessing if they can do something.
Quote from: Sommerjon;679265Like I said they have to ask for your blessing if they can do something.
If they aren't asking the GM's blessing, then they would be asking the rules for the blessing of being able to do X. I prefer asking a thinking being sitting at my table whether I can do X to asking a sit of rules that has no idea of the exact situation at our table nor of our campaign nor of our style of play. If I wanted to have the rules be supreme, I'd play a boardgame or a computer game instead of a tabletop RPG.
Quote from: Sommerjon;679265Like I said they have to ask for your blessing if they can do something.
I would rather have a world of possible options open to me than only those that were pre-conceived by another and codified in a book. Those endless possibilities have to be adjudicated by a thinking human being in order to be possible. Its what makes the tabletop experience unique. I don't enjoy giving that up in exchange for a few pre-programmed tricks the rulebooks decided I could try. YMMV.
Quote from: TristramEvans;678760There does seem to be a number of people who don't "get it", though these tend IME to be the same people who obsess about mechanical balance and are pissed off that 4th edition was cancelled; in other words people who don't like or have a grudge towards old school gaming. There's also a few of the "You Can Never Say Any Edition of D&D Does Anything That 4th Edition Isn't As Good At Or I'll Take It As A Personal Attack!"-types at TBP.
While I'm okay with the idea of a tactical arena fantasy RPG, and I'm even okay with it being called D&D, the unpleasant thing about 4E is how much of its fanbase is made up of the two groups you describe:
Number-crunchers who are obsessed with mechanical balance.
Rules Matter system-wanks who had always hated D&D.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;678843This is why I no longer run system that fixate players attention on builds, what kinds of "stuff" they get at each new level, and the numbers they can crunch via mechanical masturbation, as the dominating focus of the game.
But, but DEAD LEVELS, man. DEAD LEVELS.
Quote from: RandallS;679290If they aren't asking the GM's blessing, then they would be asking the rules for the blessing of being able to do X. I prefer asking a thinking being sitting at my table whether I can do X to asking a sit of rules that has no idea of the exact situation at our table nor of our campaign nor of our style of play. If I wanted to have the rules be supreme, I'd play a boardgame or a computer game instead of a tabletop RPG.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;679294I would rather have a world of possible options open to me than only those that were pre-conceived by another and codified in a book. Those endless possibilities have to be adjudicated by a thinking human being in order to be possible. Its what makes the tabletop experience unique. I don't enjoy giving that up in exchange for a few pre-programmed tricks the rulebooks decided I could try. YMMV.
I honestly can't fathom the mindset of people who want to expunge the only element of RPGs that makes them different from boardgames and CRPGs. It's baffling that twats like Luke Crane, who have clearly had a very unhappy history actually playing RPGs, are so influential. These people have to be bitter non-gamers. There's no other explanation.
Quote from: Haffrung;679332But, but DEAD LEVELS, man. DEAD LEVELS.
:( I'm in the minority I suppose because I never considered a level that gave me increased hit points and a better chance to score hits to be "dead".
On the contrary, these things helped keep characters alive.
The reason my Dragon Age game ended abruptly, was because the players felt that they didn't get enough sparkly colored rainbow powers shooting out of their ass every time they levelled up.
I made my life easier and no longer run games for these kinds of people. I'm happier now for it. Nothing is worse than running a game that you aren't excited to prep and play.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;679339:( I'm in the minority I suppose because I never considered a level that gave me increased hit points and a better chance to score hits to be "dead".
On the contrary, these things helped keep characters alive.
.
I'm of the same mindset. Sure, it's nice to get a new power now and then, but gaining HP, better combat skills, and/or increased saving throws was pretty good, especially at low levels.
Heck, going from level 1 to level 2 resulted in double the hit points, and double the life expectancy in combat. That's a huge bonus right there regardless if you're also able to get a new maneuver or power.
Quote from: Sommerjon;679265There's no other definition. If someone's saying any different they're mistaken. Fine so far.
There does seem to be a number of people who don't "get it", though these tend IME to be the same people who obsess about mechanical balance and are pissed off that 4th edition was cancelled; in other words people who don't like or have a grudge towards old school gaming. There's also a few of the "You Can Never Say Any Edition of D&D Does Anything That 4th Edition Isn't As Good At Or I'll Take It As A Personal Attack!"-types at TBP. And there's the shitting.
Like I said they have to ask for your blessing if they can do something.
Isn't 95% of everything a character does at the whim of the GM?
"I open that door" Nope...its 'wizard locked' or "Seems to be barred somehow"
"I charge the ogres!" Nope...your horse just ran into a huge covered pit the ogres dug earlier" or "Sure if you can make a difficult Ride skill roll"
"I seduce the Queen!" Nope...she actually loves her husband so much the thought of another man make sher ill" or "It's remotely possible if you really sweep he roff her feet while the king has neglected her and is off hunting again"
Its all gm whim.
Seems more an issue of 'Is the gm an asshat or not'
I have never once played an rpg where gm whim was not the final say in everyhthing.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;679355I'm of the same mindset. Sure, it's nice to get a new power now and then, but gaining HP, better combat skills, and/or increased saving throws was pretty good, especially at low levels.
Heck, going from level 1 to level 2 resulted in double the hit points, and double the life expectancy in combat. That's a huge bonus right there regardless if you're also able to get a new maneuver or power.
Expectations changed once combat became the mainstay of play instead of a dangerous part of it.
Challenges were to be in expected ranges and thus survivable by default unless the party mashed the wrong button or something.
Therefore increased survival rates, were no longer such a great thing since survival was taken for granted. To remain interesting, all those strung together fights had to provide ample opportunity to go KAPOW!! and ZOWIE!!! and all the multicolored buttons were needed to provide for that.
Thus, any level without multihued anal rainbow sparklies were "dead".
Quote from: Exploderwizard;679378Expectations changed once combat became the mainstay of play instead of a dangerous part of it.
Challenges were to be in expected ranges and thus survivable by default unless the party mashed the wrong button or something.
Therefore increased survival rates, were no longer such a great thing since survival was taken for granted. To remain interesting, all those strung together fights had to provide ample opportunity to go KAPOW!! and ZOWIE!!! and all the multicolored buttons were needed to provide for that.
Thus, any level without multihued anal rainbow sparklies were "dead".
It's really the triumph of the munchkins over the grognards.
Quote from: Sommerjon;679265And there's the shitting.
Those are the types. If there's any shitting being done, it's them on old school play.
QuoteLike I said they have to ask for your blessing if they can do something.
So you didn't understand what I wrote. Let me try and simplify it:
Ex: Mother May I?
Player: can I jump over that bridge?
GM: yes/no/maybe (roll)
This style obviously has nothing to do with rulings vs rules. It's as characteristic of a group playing 4th edition as it is any old school game.
Ex: what I described
Player: I jump over the bridge
GM: okay/ that's not possible/ give me a roll for that
Neither of these things have to do with or are particularly associated with Rulings vs Rules. If you dislike playing mother may I? style then don't, I don't, but it doesn't alter the GMs side of the equation in the least.
I've come to the conclusion from reading these boards that either one of two things must be true:
1. You guys aren't accurately describing the average 4e player.
2. I played 4e nothing like the average 4e player.
Because, while I played 4e and enjoyed it, it was still a filtered through the GM experience and while the rules for combat were rather codified, there was always stuff that didn't fit and rulings were still made at the table and combat wasn't the majority of the game (though it was a major component, but then again, combat has been a major component of D&D games for me since I started playing in the late 80s. Major just means it was LIKELY to happen every session, though).
Quote from: Emperor Norton;679409I've come to the conclusion from reading these boards that either one of two things must be true:
1. You guys aren't accurately describing the average 4e player.
2. I played 4e nothing like the average 4e player.
Because, while I played 4e and enjoyed it, it was still a filtered through the GM experience and while the rules for combat were rather codified, there was always stuff that didn't fit and rulings were still made at the table and combat wasn't the majority of the game (though it was a major component, but then again, combat has been a major component of D&D games for me since I started playing in the late 80s. Major just means it was LIKELY to happen every session, though).
I'm a current 4E player. :)
I will be playing in my buddy's 4E campaign tonight in fact. It isn't my preferred system and I wouldn't run it, but I'm not one to turn down a game with my friends because of system preference issues.
I like the people I'm playing with and I like what we are doing in the campaign. The system, for me, is just there. Nothing to get excited about but no reason not to play with this group.
Too many people let their own preferences and entitlement issues get in the way of a good time. I'm there to roleplay, and have a good time, not masturbate over manipulating certain mechanics.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;679409I've come to the conclusion from reading these boards that either one of two things must be true:
1. You guys aren't accurately describing the average 4e player.
2. I played 4e nothing like the average 4e player.
Because, while I played 4e and enjoyed it, it was still a filtered through the GM experience and while the rules for combat were rather codified, there was always stuff that didn't fit and rulings were still made at the table and combat wasn't the majority of the game (though it was a major component, but then again, combat has been a major component of D&D games for me since I started playing in the late 80s. Major just means it was LIKELY to happen every session, though).
I have been gmming 4e and playing it pretty much ever sinse it came out.
I gm and play it essentially the same as I do 1E, or any rpg.
The only real difference in my eyes, is the ruleset is more 'clean'
I particularly find it perplexing when someone says 4e does not let you roleplay. wtf!?
I have been roleplaying in 4e just fine thank you.
I do admit I would rather be doing 1E though.
Quote from: Bill;679417I have been gmming 4e and playing it pretty much ever sinse it came out.
I gm and play it essentially the same as I do 1E, or any rpg.
When I ran 4e, I basically did the same thing.
But if someone's primary experiences with 4e are through either Encounters or LFR, I can totally get their point. I have no use for either of those. They both sum up everything I find uninteresting about RPGs.
Quote from: robiswrong;679383It's really the triumph of the munchkins over the grognards.
I don't know if I would call that a triumph.
A lot of munchkins theorize online for a very good reason-they can't find a DM willing to run games for them.
So, YAY for kewl powerz. Have fun finding a game to use them in.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;679441I don't know if I would call that a triumph.
In terms of determining the direction of the hobby, they absolutely did. Whether that style is "better" than the grognard style is a matter of opinion. I'm pretty sure I prefer the grognard style :)
Hell, pretty much anyone under age 40 falls into the 'munchkin' category. We were the kids, the little people - the munchkins - invading the hobby, and making the best sense we could of the rules (that were often designed for people that had an implicit wargaming background).
I frankly doubt that I would have really understood any kind of difference had I not gotten into a game that had been running for about 20 years that was run by a friend of mine's father. And I'm 41, so do the math. He was in his probably mid-20s or so when he started it, and it was based on a combination of AD&D and The Fantasy Trip.
To differentiate from 'old-school', I like to call that type of game 'paleo'.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;677622the popularity of the OSR seems to point to the direction that it's not declining. Thankfully. Rules can't fix bad DMs because bad DMs will always find a way to hurt the experience. That's why they are bad. Perhaps instead of catering to the lowest common denominator, game designers encourage players to either use a different DM, or try it themselves rather than bitch about something they weren't willing to do themselves
Precisely. The idiocy of having an opinion like Sommerjon's is that if we really assume a bad-faith DM, there's nothing in 3e or 4e or any other RPG where the GM isn't completely disempowered where he couldn't use the rules-as-written to absolutely destroy his player's characters.
Even in that scenario, the GM is god.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;680075Precisely. The idiocy of having an opinion like Sommerjon's is that if we really assume a bad-faith DM, there's nothing in 3e or 4e or any other RPG where the GM isn't completely disempowered where he couldn't use the rules-as-written to absolutely destroy his player's characters.
Even in that scenario, the GM is god.
RPGPundit
It'd be more accurate to say that WITHOUT the GM, the player is Helen Keller. :D
JG
Quote from: James Gillen;680255It'd be more accurate to say that WITHOUT the GM, the player is Helen Keller. :D
JG
So they are brilliant?
Quote from: Exploderwizard;679414I'm a current 4E player. :)
I will be playing in my buddy's 4E campaign tonight in fact. It isn't my preferred system and I wouldn't run it, but I'm not one to turn down a game with my friends because of system preference issues.
I like the people I'm playing with and I like what we are doing in the campaign. The system, for me, is just there. Nothing to get excited about but no reason not to play with this group.
Too many people let their own preferences and entitlement issues get in the way of a good time. I'm there to roleplay, and have a good time, not masturbate over manipulating certain mechanics.
I'm down with that. Kudos.
Quote from: Kuroth;680259So they are brilliant?
They're probably at least the smartest person they know...
Quote from: TristramEvans;680274They're probably at least the smartest person they know...
What Helen Keller overcame was amazing. I didn't really care what point James was trying to make, using her like that was...moronic.
Quote from: Kuroth;680286What Helen Keller overcame was amazing. I didn't really care what point James was trying to make, using her like that was...moronic.
"Deaf and blind", hotshot.
I assume you know a better icon for that condition? Please share.
Quote from: mcbobbo;680310"Deaf and blind", hotshot.
I assume you know a better icon for that condition? Please share.
She was brilliant. Using her for a joke in this way is moronic beyond only bad taste. I would have loved to meet her.
Otherwise, this is the state of these game discussions. The most bland static possible.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;679414I'm there to roleplay, and have a good time, not masturbate over manipulating certain mechanics.
Now THAT is a quotable quote.
Quote from: Kuroth;680322She was brilliant. Using her for a joke in this way is moronic beyond only bad taste. I would have loved to meet her.
You're choosing to be offended. Maybe you could choose to get the joke in the way it was intended.
Quote from: Brad;680332You're choosing to be offended. Maybe you could choose to get the joke in the way it was intended.
I let obnoxious idiotic stuff slide all the time on here without saying anything. I chose to be a friend to Helen than someone that laughs at her this time. Offended? No. Slightly revolted or perhaps simply dismayed.
Quote from: Kuroth;680348I let obnoxious idiotic stuff slide all the time on here without saying anything. I chose to be a friend to Helen than someone that laughs at her this time. Offended? No. Slightly revolted or perhaps simply dismayed.
Shame she'll never hear about that.
(http://somethingsensitive.com/Smileys/default/stewart.png)
Quote from: Kuroth;680348I let obnoxious idiotic stuff slide all the time on here without saying anything. I chose to be a friend to Helen than someone that laughs at her this time. Offended? No. Slightly revolted or perhaps simply dismayed.
You're a friend to Helen Keller?
Man, you're old...
Quote from: Kuroth;680348I let obnoxious idiotic stuff slide all the time on here without saying anything. I chose to be a friend to Helen than someone that laughs at her this time. Offended? No. Slightly revolted or perhaps simply dismayed.
So basically what you're saying is you have no sense of humor. Got it.
Let's not create a false dichotomy. There's clearly a spectrum; on the one hand the DM cloaks everything in mystery and players can't know how things will vary from one moment to the other; on the other hand, everything is known to (or can be known by) the players and no room for mystery exists.
A good GM (in my opinion) will follow established rules and when something doesn't work as expected, there will be a good reason for it that will eventually be revealed. If the orcs are immune to weapons, for instance, I'm going to find out that there is a blessed oil of Grummesh or something; if the DM is just being a dick I hope to find that out as well.
The fact is, we're all humans, and most DMs have abused their power at one time or another. Call it a learning experience. Hopefully they don't do it anymore. But in the case that it happens, ensuring that the players can find out about it and respond with a request that the DM justify seemingly impossible game elements is my preference.
Quote from: Kuroth;680322She was brilliant. Using her for a joke in this way is moronic beyond only bad taste. I would have loved to meet her.
Otherwise, this is the state of these game discussions. The most bland static possible.
Again, if you can come up with another icon that makes the same point, I will concede.
Please try.
All these reactions to me defending an innocent woman from history. Yet, it is from folks that actually participated in a discussion about children's tea parties and role-play games. So...ya, it figures. I toast to Helen in her Heavenly abode.
I wouldn't normally bother with this type of thread at all, but role-play game are more like tea parties than cowboys and Indians. Lots of sitting around and such. When they were little children, my sisters never played tea party, though. They enjoyed Barbie and GI Joe. Dolls and action figures seem perhaps closest of small child games.
"Magical Tea Party" is a disparaging term used for any RPG where the players can't force the GM to do what they want using the rules text.
Quote from: Kuroth;680587All these reactions to me defending an innocent woman from history. Yet, it is from folks that actually participated in a discussion about children's tea parties and role-play games. So...ya, it figures. I toast to Helen in her Heavenly abode.
I wouldn't normally bother with this type of thread at all, but role-play game are more like tea parties than cowboys and Indians. Lots of sitting around and such. When they were little children, my sisters never played tea party, though. They enjoyed Barbie and GI Joe. Dolls and action figures seem perhaps closest of small child games.
When I was a kid I role- played. As an adult I do it with a few rules so all our imaginations get along. I don't think it needs be described as any more complex than that.
Anyone claiming "magic tea party" isnt derogatory is full of shit. There's really nothing more to it. Role players reject this label wholesale, and it's retardedly unecessary. There's already a term for it: role-playing. "magical tea party" comes solely from those go whom role-playing is a subordinate concern or distraction from the point of their games (which is usually "character optimization" and contrived combat scenarios.
Quote from: TristramEvans;680592When I was a kid I role- played. As an adult I do it with a few rules so all our imaginations get along. I don't think it needs be described as any more complex than that.
Anyone claiming "magic tea party" isnt derogatory is full of shit. There's really nothing more to it. Role players reject this label wholesale, and it's retardedly unecessary. There's already a term for it: role-playing. "magical tea party" comes solely from those go whom role-playing is a subordinate concern or distraction from the point of their games (which is usually "character optimization" and contrived combat scenarios.
Oh, for sure. When folks on rpgnet or other place say 'magical tea party' they mean it in a derogatory way. Does that really need to be stated? I personally don't have a derogatory image of children playing that type of game, though. When they use the image as derogatory, I sort of find it lacking empathy with children too. I imagine they wouldn't say "playing Barbie" for a slur because Barbie is thought sexist by them. It is all stupid.
Quote from: Kuroth;680596Oh, for sure. When folks on rpgnet or other place say 'magical tea party' they mean it in a derogatory way.
Yeah, and it's pretty much always in conjunction with a game where the GM can say "no".
Which means that its use tells me more about the player than anything else.
Quote from: robiswrong;680601Yeah, and it's pretty much always in conjunction with a game where the GM can say "no".
Which means that its use tells me more about the player than anything else.
I used 'oh, for sure' as 'it is obvious'. These bizzaro issues are made-up by odd balls to have simulated discussion from remote locations. It is common at rpgnet, and it is nearly common elsewhere. It is pointless.
Quote from: Kuroth;680611I used 'oh, for sure' as 'it is obvious'. These bizzaro issues are made-up by odd balls to have simulated discussion from remote locations. It is common at rpgnet, and it is nearly common elsewhere. It is pointless.
Yes, we're in violent agreement. I was adding on, not disagreeing.
Quote from: robiswrong;680612Yes, we're in violent agreement. I was adding on, not disagreeing.
Ya, as you say. Anyway, I hope all have good games planned for the week.
Quote from: Kuroth;680348I let obnoxious idiotic stuff slide all the time on here without saying anything. I chose to be a friend to Helen than someone that laughs at her this time. Offended? No. Slightly revolted or perhaps simply dismayed.
Quote from: Rincewind1;680375Shame she'll never hear about that.
(http://somethingsensitive.com/Smileys/default/stewart.png)
Indeed.
JG
Quote from: James Gillen;680641Indeed.
JG
Oh, she did in her way.
Quote from: James Gillen;680641Indeed.
JG
You know why Stevie Wonder can't read?
'cos he's black.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;680413Let's not create a false dichotomy. There's clearly a spectrum; on the one hand the DM cloaks everything in mystery and players can't know how things will vary from one moment to the other; on the other hand, everything is known to (or can be known by) the players and no room for mystery exists.
A good GM (in my opinion) will follow established rules and when something doesn't work as expected, there will be a good reason for it that will eventually be revealed. If the orcs are immune to weapons, for instance, I'm going to find out that there is a blessed oil of Grummesh or something; if the DM is just being a dick I hope to find that out as well.
The fact is, we're all humans, and most DMs have abused their power at one time or another. Call it a learning experience. Hopefully they don't do it anymore. But in the case that it happens, ensuring that the players can find out about it and respond with a request that the DM justify seemingly impossible game elements is my preference.
Some mysteries should be solvable by the players. A game with only questions and no answers gets tedious. Some unknown elements might take longer than others to discover.
As far as monster capabilities, the extent of player knowledge only needs to cover whatever lore the characters know or have experienced firsthand.
The monsters in a published volume are suggestions only and can be changed/altered to fit into a particular campaign. The GM is under no obligation to "justify" any changes from a published creature to one used in the campaign.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;680413Let's not create a false dichotomy. There's clearly a spectrum; on the one hand the DM cloaks everything in mystery and players can't know how things will vary from one moment to the other; on the other hand, everything is known to (or can be known by) the players and no room for mystery exists.
A good GM (in my opinion) will follow established rules and when something doesn't work as expected, there will be a good reason for it that will eventually be revealed. If the orcs are immune to weapons, for instance, I'm going to find out that there is a blessed oil of Grummesh or something; if the DM is just being a dick I hope to find that out as well.
The fact is, we're all humans, and most DMs have abused their power at one time or another. Call it a learning experience. Hopefully they don't do it anymore. But in the case that it happens, ensuring that the players can find out about it and respond with a request that the DM justify seemingly impossible game elements is my preference.
If I was dming and a creature was immune to weapons, most veteran players would know of a few ways that might happen. I don't think the gm should be obligated to explain exactly why. Might be a gargoyle masked by an illussion to look like an orc. A wizard cast stoneskin on an orc. Orc drank potion of invulnerability; probably plenty of possibilities.
If a player was freaking out over it, I might tell them what happened later.
Its a bit like a magician explaining his secrets. :)
Quote from: Exploderwizard;680732Some mysteries should be solvable by the players. A game with only questions and no answers gets tedious. Some unknown elements might take longer than others to discover.
As far as monster capabilities, the extent of player knowledge only needs to cover whatever lore the characters know or have experienced firsthand.
The monsters in a published volume are suggestions only and can be changed/altered to fit into a particular campaign. The GM is under no obligation to "justify" any changes from a published creature to one used in the campaign.
This is the way I've always played. I'll make up new monsters, or revise existing ones on the spot. These trolls hang off stalactites and spit acid. Deal with it.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;680413The fact is, we're all humans, and most DMs have abused their power at one time or another.
What exactly, in your mind, constitutes an abuse of the DM's power?
Quote from: deadDMwalking;680413But in the case that it happens, ensuring that the players can find out about it and respond with a request that the DM justify seemingly impossible game elements is my preference.
I'll let Kyle Aaron handle this one for me.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;679268When you're a shit roleplayer, gamer and DM, you need rules for everything.
Quote from: Haffrung;680748This is the way I've always played. I'll make up new monsters, or revise existing ones on the spot. These trolls hang off stalactites and spit acid. Deal with it.
No no...you must only use monsters that the players can know all the stats beforehand and easily dispatch them with uber builds!!!!
What were you thinking!!!
Quote from: Black Vulmea;680759What exactly, in your mind, constitutes an abuse of the DM's power?
I'll let Kyle Aaron handle this one for me.
Interesting question.
I guess I would define GM abuse of power as 'doing stupid shit for stupid reasons' Like, saving his pet npc. Punishing players for leaving his railroad.
Ignoring AC because the gm feels a character has not taken enough damage lately, stuff like that.
Quote from: Bill;680763No no...you must only use monsters that the players can know all the stats beforehand and easily dispatch them with uber builds!!!!
What were you thinking!!!
When I first started playing Next, one of our battles was against a group of orcs. In Next, orcs have this relentless ability, which means that if they drop to 0 HP from damage that wasn't from one hit, they kept fighting until the end of their next turn.
We did not know this.
After dealing 25+ points an orc and it didn't fall, I turned to my companion and said, "We are in
serious trouble mate!"
Of course, after the next turn it died on its own, which made us all look confused. Only later did we find out about this ability, and therefore not to keep attacking it over and over while it's buddies remained unscathed.
That was an excellent session. When things are new again? Love it.
Quote from: Bill;680763No no...you must only use monsters that the players can know all the stats beforehand and easily dispatch them with uber builds!!!!
What were you thinking!!!
The notion that players know monster stats, and that it's dickish for the DM to change them, is so outlandish to me that I scarcely know what to make of it. If this is really a thing, and not just forum bullshit, it turns the whole game on its head. I'd be less shocked to learn a lot of people play D&D in swimming pools, or run parties of PCs made up of barnyard animals.
Quote from: Haffrung;680777The notion that players know monster stats, and that it's dickish for the DM to change them, is so outlandish to me that I scarcely know what to make of it. If this is really a thing, and not just forum bullshit, it turns the whole game on its head. I'd be less shocked to learn a lot of people play D&D in swimming pools, or run parties of PCs made up of barnyard animals.
It's a real thing, and outside of D&D it was somewhat common even twenty years ago. "Sean is not allowed to bring his own Earthdawn book" was a houserule at my table back in 96, for example.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;680759What exactly, in your mind, constitutes an abuse of the DM's power?
In my opinion (though you didn't ask me): Forgetting that the DM's job is to make a fun (however you define that) game for the whole table.
When your grand story becomes more important than the players, you're going to be a dick. It's inevitable.
When your idea of "how your world works" becomes more important than the players, you're going to end up a dick (now, in fairness, presenting a consistent world *adds to* the enjoyment of people).
When your NPCs are more important to you than the PCs, you're going to be a dick.
When how tough your encounters are is more important to you than the players, you're going to be a dick.
Basically, any time that you think the players are there for your amusement, rather than the other way around, you're going to be a dick.
Being a DM is a lot like being a dom in a BDSM relationship. On the surface, it appears that you have the power, but in reality everything you do is for the other person/people.
Quote from: robiswrong;680832Basically, any time that you think the players are there for your amusement, rather than the other way around, you're going to be a dick.
Technically not the way I see it. Everyone at the table should be doing their utmost to make sure all of the group is having a good time. This applies to DM and players equally.
Quote from: robiswrong;680832Being a DM is a lot like being a dom in a BDSM relationship. On the surface, it appears that you have the power, but in reality everything you do is for the other person/people.
Ummm...... I'm gonna back away slowly here. :eek:
Quote from: Exploderwizard;680877Technically not the way I see it. Everyone at the table should be doing their utmost to make sure all of the group is having a good time. This applies to DM and players equally.
Of course. The DM is a player too (in the broad sense), and should also be having fun. Any player who gets their enjoyment at the expense of the rest of the table is going to be a problem.
It's just more toxic, and perhaps more common, in the DM role. Those who seek authority shouldn't have it, etc.
And the mere presence of an "authority" can act as a mitigating factor in the case of an 'abusive' player. When the abuse is coming from the "authority", the only real recourse is often "leave the game".
Quote from: Exploderwizard;680877Ummm...... I'm gonna back away slowly here. :eek:
HA!
Quote from: Exploderwizard;680877Technically not the way I see it. Everyone at the table should be doing their utmost to make sure all of the group is having a good time. This applies to DM and players equally.
I disagree. Players shouldn't be dicks. But the only thing they have to concern themselves with in the game is their own PC and that PC's behaviour. Unless your group is toxic, they won't intentionally do things to piss off other players. But it isn't Mike's job to make sure Kevin has a fair shake and has a good time. It isn't his job to ensure the game runs smoothly and is fun for everyone. Just as my players find it irksome to be given control of something outside their PCs knowledge or control (narrativism), they find it annoying to be responsible for stuff outside their PC control.
The only one at the table whose core duty it is to make sure everyone is having fun is the DM. And that's why the DM has far more authority and latitude running the game. A DM's role can be likened to a director, and a player's to an actor. Everyone wants the play to go well, but their responsibilities are of an entirely different scope.
Quote from: Haffrung;680908But it isn't Mike's job to make sure Kevin has a fair shake and has a good time.
This depends on the expectations of those at the table.
Is Mike allowed to introduce rules from a new splat book that make Kevin's character obsolete?
Because if Mike reserves that right then so does he inherit the responsibility of this privilege.
Quote from: Haffrung;680908I disagree. Players shouldn't be dicks. But the only thing they have to concern themselves with in the game is their own PC and that PC's behaviour. Unless your group is toxic, they won't intentionally do things to piss off other players. But it isn't Mike's job to make sure Kevin has a fair shake and has a good time. It isn't his job to ensure the game runs smoothly and is fun for everyone. Just as my players find it irksome to be given control of something outside their PCs knowledge or control (narrativism), they find it annoying to be responsible for stuff outside their PC control.
If you have players whose fun is dependent on harming other players' characters, it's a problem. Yes, the thief wants to steal. It's still a bad idea.
Part of it is an abuse of the implicit social contract "we won't kick you out of the group because you're part of the group". Knowing this, the player has the character do things that *would* get the character kicked from the group in the lack of that general understanding.
So everyone is responsible primarily for their character, but general levels of social behavior and not being a dick are still appropriate.
Quote from: Rincewind1;680653You know why Stevie Wonder can't read?
'cos he's black.
Now THAT's tasteless. ;)
JG
Quote from: Sacrosanct;670164It's a term quite most often used by people whenever the GM needs to make a ruling for anything. Ever. These people feel like every possible scenario must be addressed in the rules, and the GM shouldn't be allowed to make a ruling at any time, or they aren't playing a "real" game, and are playing MTP instead. it is often paired with "mother-may-I".
It's really nothing more than a passive aggressive way to tell someone that they are having badwrong fun playing RPGs.
Codified ules for sex and pregnancy pretty much disprove Magical Tea Party.
D&D is an objectively better game when it doesn't include these things, as every implementation I've seen for "realism" or "immersion" actually made the session worse in some way, shape, or form.
Quote from: Libertad;687537D&D is an objectively better game when it doesn't include these things, as every implementation I've seen for "realism" or "immersion" actually made the session worse in some way, shape, or form.
Strapping a saddle to a cow doesn't make it a racehorse.
Quote from: The Traveller;687543Strapping a saddle to a cow doesn't make it a racehorse.
For that you need an Ostrich.
Joust!