"Real role-players don't roll dice!" and other such madness

[tenuki]

Playing the "game" of asking the GM for stuff then begging, cajoling, arguing and cock sucking until he gives it to you measures NO skills that we WANT to measure, it does nothing particularly good for the game and does a number of notably bad things to the game.

It is in actual fact a major DISADVANTAGE of using Fairy Tea Party that it revolves largely around a bunch of euphemisms for sucking the GMs cock in the hope that he will agree with your request regardless of it being reasonable, well delivered, or good for the actual game.

Man, you sound bitter. Are you all that certain you're having fun in this hobby?

One reason for using tactical rules for some game situations ... is that tactical rules and Fairy Tea party require different skills from the players.

It could be desirable for a variety of player skills to be useful for in-game success, and the skills required to excel at both tactical games and Fairy Tea party may be skills that you want to include and encourage in the game.

That is actually an excellent point. Another benefit of semi-MTP (if I may) is that it poses fewer options for competitive play by exploiting weird synergies in the rules. That's good because it allows us to focus on the fact that hey, we're here to fucking entertain each other, and those bitching wars get old fast.

Hm. You can't keep track of your own statements and actively deny even attempting to make an actual relevant argument. This will end well.

PL, have you ever conceded that your opponent in a debate made a good point?

My three words for you:

Unclench. Your. Sphincter.

[Swordslinger]

BZZZT!!! And right here you are in WTF territory. Rules exist EXACTLY for this purpose. Among others, but DEFINITELY this is in the top 10, the top five, the top three it might even be THE top reason on the list of reasons for having rules.

If you INDEED believe your claim that rules are NOT for EXACTLY the purpose of providing fairness in the various players powers over the game you are just... SO FUCKING INSANE!

Okay, lobster, I don't give a shit what rules you're playing under, if you have a GM at all who creates the adventures, he can very well go and create an adventure that you cannot win.

Even with everything 100% codified, the DM can just go and make you fight overwhelming opposition until you die. I don't need rule 0 for that, I can do that shit in Neverwinter Nights.

If you're pretending like some rule is going to protect you against someone that has infinty monsters under his command, well you're just being stupid.

The entire premise of the game is that your DM is trying to be fair. If you go by your paranoid delusion that the DM is out to get you, I'm sorry, you're just fucked. You can come to the game with a 10,000 page compendium of rules, you will still be fucked. I guarantee you. If the DM wants your ass dead, you will die and based off your annoying personality, I can definitely see why this would be a big issue for you.

When you come into a game paranoid and looking to start a fight with the DM, it's no surprise that he wouldn't want you playing anymore. I'd "Rocks fall" your ass myself if you were in my game, because you don't make the game a fun experience.

[PhoneLobster]

Even with everything 100% codified, the DM can just go and make you fight overwhelming opposition until you die.

Er. No. Unless you codify in raw stupidity that is not actually even possible if you 100% codify your system. Go ask Descent.

But sure, you leave in rule zero AND other undefined arbitrary Fairy Tea Party loopholes THEN sure the GM can kill you all and destroy the game for no good reason. And lets face it SOMEWHERE in the game you DO leave in SOMETHING like that. (though leaving that right in your basic "level appropriate challenges" is probably a bad place to leave it...)

But I think you fail to realize. That you are actually arguing distinctly in favor of my position. Because you are basically telling us "The GM can ignore the rules and destroy the game using the Fairy Tea Party!".

Aaaaand... that is actually an example of precisely how rules work against the GM destroying the game... with Fairy Tea Party.

Nicely done. Only you can so loudly argue against yourself so compellingly.

PS

If you're pretending like some rule is going to protect you against someone that has infinty monsters under his command, well you're just being stupid.

If the GM says "I now attack you with the Infinity Monsters Under My Command" I think I'm going to be calling bullshit. The fact that you apparently think it's cool suggests that you are insane. But, well... yeah...

When you come into a game paranoid and looking to start a fight with the DM, it's no surprise that he wouldn't want you playing anymore. I'd "Rocks fall" your ass myself if you were in my game, because you don't make the game a fun experience.

Imma just gonna let that quote sit there and (continue to) rot. It's sufficiently bad for your argument without any actual response or rebuttal.

[Swordslinger]

But I think you fail to realize. That you are actually arguing distinctly in favor of my position. Because you are basically telling us "The GM can ignore the rules and destroy the game using the Fairy Tea Party!".

I agree that there are bad DMs out there, what I don't agree with is that you'll ever reform them into good DMs by handing them a 10,000 page rulebook.

It's a lost cause, dude. Someone with infinite power versus someone with slightly less infinite power doesn't even matter.

If the GM says "I now attack you with the Infinity Monsters Under My Command" I think I'm going to be calling bullshit. The fact that you apparently think it's cool suggests that you are insane. But, well... yeah...

And you can call bullshit about any number of other things that may happen in a game too. You don't need rules to walk out of the game, and that will always be the primary means of handling a bad DM.

Making a shit ton of rules for everything just makes the game more complicated and less fun. Like most attempts to straitjacket a bad DM, you'll only end up making the game less enjoyable for everyone.

No sense selling your dick so you can raise money to buy a condom.

It seems you do not want a game with a GM at all. So go play chess, WoW, Magic or whatever other DM-less competitive game you want. You'll get your fill of ironclad rules there and there's a vast majority of games to choose from. Just stay out of RPGs, they ain't your thing dude.

[PhoneLobster]

Just stay out of RPGs, they ain't your thing dude.

I'm not the one who's entire argument relies on destructive GMS who you yourself dismiss as not existing.

It is YOUR scenario that there ARE no bad GMs because you punch them or something and that therefore you need no rules that restrict GM power for any reason in any way. But you also have rules that do that because of underpant's gnomes and you don't-wanna-talk-about-its.

I suspect you have no fucking idea how your "Only bad GMs are bad and they don't exist I hate you stop playing I would Rocks Fall you you bastard!" somewhat... fails... to exclude a vast amount of beneficial reasons for having rules at all.

But you know, hopefully you will pull another "Why can I not fucking understand anything Phonelobster ever says!" quote, (again), to further make you look stupid so I will leave it as an exercise for you to figure out how your insane and extreme claims in no way exclude the need for reasonable rules design.

[Swordslinger]

I'm not the one who's entire argument relies on destructive GMS who you yourself dismiss as not existing.

You apparently don't understand my argument. The point isn't that bad GMs don't exist. It's that there's no cure for it other than finding a new GM.

You don't rewrite the rules of soccer because some dude is a disruptive dick who kicks the ball into his own team's goal, you just kick his ass off of your team.

[PhoneLobster]

The point isn't that bad GMs don't exist. It's that there's no cure for it other than finding a new GM.

Ergo your argument is that you should never write rules that restrict GMs in any way because you treat Bad GMs as not existing.

The number of steps wrong with your line of reasoning is amazing.

You don't rewrite the rules of soccer because ...

Your analogy is wrong on many levels. You are arguing against soccer needing to have rules at all especially ones that in any way restrict soccer players, because you would punch soccer players that piss you off. That is a stupid fucking argument.

It is all the more stupid because sports really do have examples of abusive player actions and restrictive rules being made specifically to counter them.

One of my favorites being how the rules on the maximum width of a Cricket Bat only came into existence after an enterprising team captain had all his team's cricket bats made wider than the wickets.

So yeah. Even your own real world examples hate your stupid ass argument.

[Swordslinger]

Ergo your argument is that you should never write rules that restrict GMs in any way because you treat Bad GMs as not existing.

There are plenty of reasons you might write rules that prevent GMs from doing certain stuff, but the purpose of those rules isn't solely to restrict the GM. Tactical combat for instance is to make game more appealing to D&D players.

One of my favorites being how the rules on the maximum width of a Cricket Bat only came into existence after an enterprising team captain had all his team's cricket bats made wider than the wickets.

You're misunderstanding.

The DM is not an adversary, he's a teammate.

His job is to work to try to make the game fun, not just crush the PCs into the dirt. If your teammate is trying to kick the ball into your own goal, you kick his ass off your team.

You don't write rules to stop that. Because even if you say the guy can't score on his own team, he'll just find a new way to be a dick, like passing the ball to the other team, or deliberately tripping your goalie to make it easier for the other team to score. If some dude is looking to cause problems, believe me, he will. The best thing you can do is just not play with him anymore. No 10,000 page rulebook is going to cure someone of being an ass.

[MGuy]

Sword, you are completely missing PL's point. Having a bunch of rules helps put everyone on the same page and prevents many disagreements about what can and should happen when X player uses Y maneuver. One of the reasons rules are made is to keep things fair, be it between players, or GMs and the players. There being "bad GMs" is a separate issue altogether and does not help advance any argument at all.

You're using some kind of weird reverse Oberoni Fallacy where just because a GM can fuck with Z rule then Z rule shouldn't exist. If you don't want rules covering Social Mechanics then what you want is to MTP it instead. PL isn't saying that the DM is an adversary but that rules are in place in order to keep things sane.

[Pseudo Stupidity]

Mguy is correct. Sword needs to understand the rules prevent all MCs, even good ones, from screwing their players over on accident or on purpose. If the MC says "it's too windy to cast spells" I can point to concentration and say "Oh, so I have to make a DC X check," and then resume playing.

They are a safety net for MC mistakes and a way of making a consistent world. The MC and I may have different ideas of what is fair in a certain situation, the rules say what happens so we don't shout at each other each time we disagree.

[PhoneLobster]

Hush up on the "GMs are not a 2 color spectrum of Benign Perfect Gods and Craven Evil Devils" thing guys. I was trying to help Swordslinger along to that realization by himself, as optimistic as that may have been... And then as a next step I would have had to wrangle with him overcoming the delusion that he personally has perfect understanding of "believable NPCs", "fairness" and "storytelling" and as he seems to think, always produces perfect outcomes his players are happy with and the only kind of people who even doubt that are evil embittered greedy players like me who aren't welcome at his table!

On the other hand, I wouldn't give Swordslinger's non-adversarial GM claims even as much credence as his two types of GMs "argument". Considering how many pages of that one thread at band camp that he spent demanding that he be able to slaughter low level characters left right and center with deadly encounters due to a need to satisfy "Realism" and provide "Challenge".

As with much of what he and his ilk have been putting forward on this thread when he says the GM isn't adversarial that is not him actually being reasonable it is ONLY lip service used to attack his opponents with a label that he has fuzzily recognized to be a bad thing. Meanwhile his own actual preferred play style IS game destroyingly adversarial, and he doesn't even understand that.

[Swordslinger]

Sword, you are completely missing PL's point. Having a bunch of rules helps put everyone on the same page and prevents many disagreements about what can and should happen when X player uses Y maneuver. One of the reasons rules are made is to keep things fair, be it between players, or GMs and the players. There being "bad GMs" is a separate issue altogether and does not help advance any argument at all.

I'm saying that rules with the only purpose of restricting DM power are bad, not that all rules that restrict DM power are bad. Putting everyone on the same page is beneficial because it speeds up play. It prevents a series of PCs asking "What are my odds of doing X?" for all manner of conceivable actions.

There's also an important point to keep things equal between players. That right there requires a lot of codified rules, and the bulk of what most people consider a game system. There is of course a point where the rules become too complex where they slow down play because people are no longer on the same page simply because they can no longer remember the rule. At that point, it's better to eliminate rules, because you're slowing down play, not speeding it up.

PL is seeking rules that exist for a single purpose: To restrict the DM.

PL obviously had some bad experience with a DM or several DMs in the past and is now so mentally scarred by it that it made him develop an adversarial complex. He hates the DM to such a crazy irrational level that he is in favor of restricting the DM's power, even if it comes at the expense of storyline, fun and verisimilitude. PL could care less if the NPCs don't act logically and the story blows chunks as a result. All he cares about is that he took power away from the DM.

It's just hard for me to figure out why PL doesn't move on to a game without a GM.

[Pseudo Stupidity]

Pretty much every rule is restricting the MC because without rules what the MC says goes since that is the default rule. So yep, every single rule is restricting the MC due to the fact the MC makes up everything in the world. If there weren't rules for grappling the MC would make up what happens when you try and grapple a giant. If there weren't rules for spellcasting he'd make up what happens when your wizard tries to cast a spell.

Every single rule limits the MC because in MTP the MC is infallible.

Sword, NPCs are believable even if you have rules. What are you talking about? When do the rules make it so NPCs can't act in a believable way? You know, except making somebody a fanatic in 6 seconds by getting a 70 diplo.

[MGuy]

Things like CR/Monster scaling to make sure that players are fighting level appropriate challenges, wealth by level to (attempt) to have GMs give players level appropriate goodies, and (unique to 4e) scaling DCs for skills are all aimed at specifically the GM since players do not control any of this. They are rules that are designed to keep the GM in line. If you don't have a problem with any one of these rules or these kind of rules then you are admitting that you do not mind rules that keep the GM in line.

[PhoneLobster]

Things like CR/Monster scaling to make sure that players are fighting level appropriate challenges,

If you're pretending like some rule is going to protect you against someone that has infinty monsters under his command, well you're just being stupid.

Yeah that's right MGuy, Swordslinger doesn't know what the fuck you are talking about well in advance.

[tenuki]

Every single rule limits the MC because in MTP the MC is infallible.

The fact that rules limit the MC doesn't mean they exist to limit the MC. Their purpose is to facilitate play.

The key here is to understand that as the MC, your job is to provide a living world background for the group as a whole to create a story against. I find rules extremely useful in that, as I like to improvise and lo!, the formal aspects of the game give me cues and input to riff on.

Playing with rules means I don't have to sit there for 5 hours straight and pull narrative out of my ass. The game itself does a lot of the work. The rules act as (a pitifully coarse approximation of, no matter the size of your ruleset) the physical laws of the world, and you lean back and watch stuff bounce off other stuff for a while.

So, if that's so wonderful, why don't I want rules for everything then?

Because besides taking work off the GM's shoulders, rules also limit the players' ability to contribute to the story.

I mean, you've done a lot of creative work on the setting, the adventure or whatever and want it to become the best experience it can be. You've gone and visualized a fictional place to the point that you can improvise descriptions of details in the architecture. You've created a bunch of NPCs with interesting personalities and nefarious intentions to populate the setting with and dreamed up a history of their dealings with each other that explains what's going on when the PCs arrive and start to mess with stuff.

And the only way you're gonna allow the players to contribute to that effort is to announce actions and roll dice? If a player has to go through the rules every time he wants to affect something relevant in the setting, it's like he's talking to you in Morse. It's a waste of creative potential.

[Swordslinger]

Every single rule limits the MC because in MTP the MC is infallible.

Yes, that's true. But I'm not sure why that matters. I already stated that rules that exist for other purposes are fine. It's only when you start writing rules for the specific purpose of limiting the DM that you create problems.

Sword, NPCs are believable even if you have rules. What are you talking about? When do the rules make it so NPCs can't act in a believable way? You know, except making somebody a fanatic in 6 seconds by getting a 70 diplo.

Apparently you must have missed earlier in the thread at where Lobster was pretty much promoting that NPCs are forced to act with the results of a diplomacy roll even if it makes absolutely no sense. He wanted it to be where you just announce what result you're going for like "King declares war on the elves" or "King gives you everything in his treasury" or whatever. And if you succeed, the king does it, without the PC even so much as giving the king any kind of valid reason why. In fact, it was basically up to the DM to tell the PC what he said to the NPC to convince him. Even if there was no feasable thing the PC could have said... the NPC has to do it anyway, because the dice are god in PL's system. Fuck the story.

At that point, the NPCs are no longer acting like people. They're don't act because of logical reasons or emotions or anything like that. They act simply because "He rolled a 35 on his diplomacy check". That's not a compelling character, that's a rules bot.

[FatR]

Pretty much every rule is restricting the MC because without rules what the MC says goes since that is the default rule. So yep, every single rule is restricting the MC due to the fact the MC makes up everything in the world. If there weren't rules for grappling the MC would make up what happens when you try and grapple a giant. If there weren't rules for spellcasting he'd make up what happens when your wizard tries to cast a spell.

Every single rule limits the MC because in MTP the MC is infallible.

I take it, you've never actually played or witnessed freeform games? Protip about how living people actually interact: the person infallible in MTP is practically always the person with the best combination of assertive personality, imagination and convincing skills among those present at the table, because, surprise, surprise, MTP works just like any other human group interaction. The only difference is that that a GM automatically holds a 50% share in "The Campaign" enterprise, and can shut it down, if pushed too far, or use this leverage to boot a player he cannot tolerate. But the assertion that this alone will prevent players from calling a GM on perceived bullshit is lulzworthy.

[Pseudo Stupidity]

I'm talking about D&D's MTP, where what the MC says goes.

Sword, NPCs should react based on how the rules tell them to react. If you tell a guard to let you through because diplomacy "I'm on important business <high roll>" then you're going to get through because the guard really does think your business is important. If the guard stops me I'm going to be really surprised that he didn't react favorably to my massive roll.

Mechanically the reason could have been anything from "running late on time-critical business" to "I'm so damn sexy" and the guard should still favor letting me through because I rolled well. Mechanics are there to make sure the MC doesn't arbitrarily decide my reason wasn't good enough, or that my character couldn't think of a good enough reason even if I said something stupid.

[violence in the media]

I'm talking about D&D's MTP, where what the MC says goes.

Sword, NPCs should react based on how the rules tell them to react. If you tell a guard to let you through because diplomacy "I'm on important business <high roll>" then you're going to get through because the guard really does think your business is important. If the guard stops me I'm going to be really surprised that he didn't react favorably to my massive roll.

Mechanically the reason could have been anything from "running late on time-critical business" to "I'm so damn sexy" and the guard should still favor letting me through because I rolled well. Mechanics are there to make sure the MC doesn't arbitrarily decide my reason wasn't good enough, or that my character couldn't think of a good enough reason even if I said something stupid.

Is there anything the person who set the guard there could do to raise the difficulty of diplomatically bypassing him? You're a king or overlord or whatever and, despite orders that you don't want to be disturbed, your guards seem to let through every mildly silver-tongued asshole in the realm. How may guards do you have to pike in the public square before "don't let anyone talk their way past you" takes effect? Can your own silver-tongued diplomat elevate their resistance? Can NPCs talk your NPCs (non-cohort leadership dudes?) into betraying your PC in some manner?

Or should the realities of diplomacy lead to world states that are deviations from what players expect, as NPCs try to shield themselves from someone just talking their way into their private sanctums or treasure rooms?

[Swordslinger]

Sword, NPCs should react based on how the rules tell them to react. If you tell a guard to let you through because diplomacy "I'm on important business <high roll>" then you're going to get through because the guard really does think your business is important. If the guard stops me I'm going to be really surprised that he didn't react favorably to my massive roll.

Mechanically the reason could have been anything from "running late on time-critical business" to "I'm so damn sexy" and the guard should still favor letting me through because I rolled well. Mechanics are there to make sure the MC doesn't arbitrarily decide my reason wasn't good enough, or that my character couldn't think of a good enough reason even if I said something stupid.

But the DM absolutely should be deciding if your reason is stupid, because that's what actual people do. Only rules constructs are going to be motivated by "But he rolled massive."

If you're attacking an empty square, it doesn't matter if you roll a 65 for your attack roll, you still miss. If you're attacking an incorporeal without a magic weapon, again, automatic miss, even if you roll a 72. A fire immune creature takes no damage from fire, no matter how strong your fireball is.

Social actions need to be the same way. Some choices of what to say should be doomed to failure, no matter what you roll. If you do the social equivalent of fireballing a fire elemental, you should fail miserably.

[PhoneLobster]

Is there anything the person who set the guard there could do to raise the difficulty of diplomatically bypassing him?

Ideally diplomacy and similar effects would not run against flat unresponsive DCs or Arbitrary bullshit, and would instead run against the traits and levels of the target. Indeed it is SPECIFICALLY the use of flat unresponsive DCs or Arbitrary bullshit that is REQUIRED to create the dreaded "but what if people just talk past guards all over the place?" scenario.

Level and character based social difficulties would mean that the means of making a guard point resistant to social infiltration is the SAME means you use to make it resistant to SWORD based infiltration, you put a better higher level guard there. Similarly MORE guards should be MORE of a social obstacle in the same way that MORE guards are MORE of a physical obstacle.

After all I notice you DIDN'T ask "How do we stop a reality where someone can just stab their way into your private sanctums and treasure vaults?".

Can your own silver-tongued diplomat elevate their resistance? Can NPCs talk your NPCs (non-cohort leadership dudes?) into betraying your PC in some manner?

If NPCs are somehow a feature of another NPC/PC there is no reason that the leader character shouldn't have some trait that says "My NPCs are better at social resistance" or something just like it is perfectly reasonable to have a trait that says "my NPCs are better at dodging swordings".

Having it just be an action you do is more questionable as a mechanic primarily because it would be harder to design without being needlessly complex to arbitrate and open to potential abuses.

My what shamelessly false comparisons you have!

And so repetitively familiar...

Can Swordslinger figure out why? I doubt it!

[Stubbazubba]

Ideally diplomacy and similar effects would not run against flat unresponsive DCs or Arbitrary bullshit, and would instead run against the traits and levels of the target. Indeed it is SPECIFICALLY the use of flat unresponsive DCs or Arbitrary bullshit that is REQUIRED to create the dreaded "but what if people just talk past guards all over the place?" scenario.

Level and character based social difficulties would mean that the means of making a guard point resistant to social infiltration is the SAME means you use to make it resistant to SWORD based infiltration, you put a better higher level guard there. Similarly MORE guards should be MORE of a social obstacle in the same way that MORE guards are MORE of a physical obstacle.

While I disagree with the open-ended nature of your proposed system from several pages back, I agree that level needs to be important in social interactions. Guard captains are both superior fighters and much better at resisting bribes. That's how they became captains instead of being killed, either by opponents or by their employer for taking a bribe.

Going off level alone, Aladdin can never realistically trick Jafar into wishing to be a genie, but if you utilize traits (i.e., Aladdin is 'Tricky' and Jafar is 'Power hungry'), those should significantly reduce the gap. That would give the little people a decent shot at winning only when they play to their strengths and their opponents' weaknesses, which makes finding out opponents' weaknesses suitably rewarding. In fact, it could be critical.

So, level 4 Aladdin is going against level 6 Jafar, in which case a +2 or 3 bonus/penalty each way would give Aladdin good enough odds (on an RNG less swingy than a d20) to believe it'll work. It would some balance work, but if you found a way to make said numbers work with combat, you could probably port them over to social just fine.

My Traits example exemplifies why you can't have a completely open-ended "I act and...*rolls*...win the encounter, k, moving on," system; for players to have meaningful differences in a social system where everyone is doing the same thing, namely talking, they have to be better at certain talkings than others, and NPCs need to be more susceptible to certain talkings than others. That's the easiest, most logical way to give it tactical depth.

[PhoneLobster]

While I disagree with the open-ended nature of your proposed system from several pages back, I agree that level needs to be important in social interactions.

I'm pretty sure the bulk of this thread is largely an argument between sanity and the usual crowd who are this time actually arguing against ANY social mechanic AT ALL.

And while no mechanic at all doesn't explicitly make guard posts useless, it doesn't actually make them useful either, and ultimately does far more to undermine their predictable objective value than it does to secure their function.

I mean it's really an easy argument for the sane side on this thread. All we have to say is that conceivably there is any rule at all that will make guard posts a functional social obstacle. Hell not even that, it just has to be better at it than sheer bullshit pulled out of the GMs ass. Which in all honesty is pretty damn easy.

[Dogbert]

That is actually an excellent point. Another benefit of semi-MTP (if I may) is that it poses fewer options for competitive play by exploiting weird synergies in the rules.

So is it a better idea to instead do competitive play by sucking more G.M cock than the other players? Because you know, that's what MTP boils down to.