De canistro textrinum

[name_here]

Well, he's talking about how a 20' radius fireball expands 10' in any direction. So basically he apparently does not know what that word means.

Err, you're confusing radius and circumference. 20' radius is 40' accross.

I, uh, know that. Although you're apparently confusing circumference (linear distance around the exterior, C=2*pi*r) with diameter (straight line between two exterior points passing through the center point, d=2r).

GC was the guy who said being 15 feet from the center of a 20 foot radius sphere would be outside of the sphere.

[Mr. GC]

Well, he's talking about how a 20' radius fireball expands 10' in any direction. So basically he apparently does not know what that word means.

Err, you're confusing radius and circumference. 20' radius is 40' accross.

I, uh, know that. Although you're apparently confusing circumference (linear distance around the exterior, C=2*pi*r) with diameter (straight line between two exterior points passing through the center point, d=2r).

GC was the guy who said being 15 feet from the center of a 20 foot radius sphere would be outside of the sphere.

No, the actual words I actually said was that the blast goes 10 feet back up and down the stairs, and then another 10 (that's 20, math is hard) into the upper and lower levels of the tower, not hitting Koth but hitting almost anything else within the tower.

[Kaelik]

Well, he's talking about how a 20' radius fireball expands 10' in any direction. So basically he apparently does not know what that word means.

Err, you're confusing radius and circumference. 20' radius is 40' accross.

No he's not. He's saying GC has no idea what he's talking about because GC is confusing radius with diameter.

However, GC is actually not confusing them. He is just ignoring the wall.

[fectin]

Mea culpa: I thought you were saying that (reading fail), and I also mixed up circference and diameter.

Derp.

[RobbyPants]

No he's not. He's saying GC has no idea what he's talking about because GC is confusing radius with diameter.

However, GC is actually not confusing them. He is just ignoring the wall.

No, I think actively fucking with us is a better guess. That picture has been posted no less than three times. Any time someone brings up a solid point with number to back themselves up, he either stops responding to that part of the discussion, or he dismisses it without actually addressing it as "basket weaver failing" or something. He then goes round to a different topic, hoping he can run a wide enough circle that we won't catch him when he gets back to somewhere where he's already been proven wrong. You can see him explicitly doing this by dragging up a bunch of old stuff from another thread, most of which he was refuted on:

This is the forum where people have seriously claimed:

"Rogues should fear Lightning Bolt."

"Spells that can at most hit half the party will kill all of it."

"Orcs should drop Raise Dead scrolls, but only if they kill someone."

"How can I kill sub 60 HP no defense?"

"Much herpaderp about 3 damage enemies when the conversation was explicitly about something else."

"We have Will save effects, let's be afraid of a bunch of things super weak to them!"

Believe it.

He's running a Gish Gallop of strawmen, and for some reason, people keep responding to him like they expect to him to respond in any way that is intellectually honest. As far as I can tell, he's keeping a running tally of how many pages of bullshit he can add to as many threads as possible.


TL;DR: He's totally fucking with us and we should stop responding to him.

[DSMatticus]

Robby is totally right. He dodges every part of the conversation he does not want to address and moves on to another seamlessly to avoid it. Which, fine, whatfuckingever. But that exact post Robby quoted stunned me. Because every single one of those either is either completely out of context, or he got thoroughly crushed on and stopped responding (usually both, actually). It's fucking terrible.

[CapnTthePirateG]

As much fun as pulling out our dicks is on the internet, can you all stop? The server's covered in jizz.

Thanks.

Oh, GC, I bet you can't beat my CR 7 with AC 9000, infinite saves, infinite HP, and 1 free ignore any effect per round. Because you are a basketweaving noob. Stop being a noob.

Now put your dick back in your pants, and learn to play D&D the real way.

P.S. Show us on the doll where the basketweavers touched you.

[Emerald]

So anyways, before Virgil's fail fest, and nocher latching onto his nuts I believe I had just pointed out K's hilarious post in which he seriously claims that if you fight an Orc with a weapon, and it kills you you should get a free immediate raise and also the Orc should have weak weapons... wait, no weapons! Wait, the evil marauder shouldn't even attack you, it should just take your weapon instead!

K wasn't saying that you should do any of that at all. Swordslinger said that there's no way for a DM to avoid killing a PC for good if the PCs are losing against a by-the-book encounter because of bad rolls or inaccurate CR. K's response was that the listed example wasn't a by-the-book example, and that if Swordslinger were running a by-the-book encounter he could change tactics or change the monster encountered to fit the party's capabilities, and that if after all that the PCs still lost there are plenty of ways to bring a PC back rather than force the player to roll up a new one.

In short, K said that picking a more-lethal-than-average encounter at a given CR and making it more lethal, using tactics the party has no way to counter or mitigate, and then making the player of the dead PC roll up a new PC is a dick move. The same applies whether you're instagibbing a level 1 party with a charging orc with a greataxe or sending a SoD-spamming necromancer against a party without death ward and good Fort saves: there's a difference between "oops, I rolled up an average on-CR encounter the party should be able to handle but they're too weak and incompetent to do so" and "here's one of the strongest on-CR encounters for the party's level, why don't I buff it up, have it ambush them and kill a PC, and not throw the PCs a bone for me being a dick."

[Avoraciopoctules]

[CapnTthePirateG]

This is quite literally the greatest thing I have ever seen. Kudos, good sir.

[Username17]

In short, K said that picking a more-lethal-than-average encounter at a given CR and making it more lethal, using tactics the party has no way to counter or mitigate, and then making the player of the dead PC roll up a new PC is a dick move. The same applies whether you're instagibbing a level 1 party with a charging orc with a greataxe or sending a SoD-spamming necromancer against a party without death ward and good Fort saves: there's a difference between "oops, I rolled up an average on-CR encounter the party should be able to handle but they're too weak and incompetent to do so" and "here's one of the strongest on-CR encounters for the party's level, why don't I buff it up, have it ambush them and kill a PC, and not throw the PCs a bone for me being a dick."

He didn't even say that. Simply that altering encounters to be more lethal had the predictable effect of killing more player characters, and that if you did that and didn't give players more compensatory access to death recovery effects that you were changing the game in a way that would force players to roll up more characters. And more importantly that this was a choice on the part of the DM - contrary to Swordslinger's claim that lethality rates were outside the DM's control.

K did not say that playing a high lethality game with a lot of turnover of characters was wrong, but he did say that complaining that the DM could not choose to play a low lethality fame without fudging dice rolls was wrong. In short: almost exactly the opposite of what GC was accusing him of.

-Username17

[nockermensch]

Can we resume the discussion now? Remember, the point is:

Out of rule moments are a fun and expected part of RPGs, but it's very hard to talk about them as you talk about the codified parts. How should RPG books deal with this, to avoid creating more people with the false idea that "MTP = you just lost the game"?

[Lago PARANOIA]

Out of rule moments are a fun and expected part of RPGs, but it's very hard to talk about them as you talk about the codified parts. How should RPG books deal with this, to avoid creating more people with the false idea that "MTP = you just lost the game"?

This is only half the story. Out-of-Rule moments are a tiresome and resentment-causing (yet expected) part of RPGs.

That's not just an ironic inversion. The number of TTRPG parodies and satires that rely on a player or DM abusing rules ambiguity and/or MTP to frustrate other people at the table are countless. Horror stories of DMs ditching established rules to move the game and story the way that they wanted to abound.

Unless you grasp the flipside of Out-of-Rules moments and why they are not a net good you are not going to understand the mentality behind 'MTP = you just lost the game'.

[Mistborn]

This is only half the story. Out-of-Rule moments are a tiresome and resentment-causing (yet expected) part of RPGs.

That's not just an ironic inversion. The number of TTRPG parodies and satires that rely on a player or DM abusing rules ambiguity and/or MTP to frustrate other people at the table are countless. Horror stories of DMs ditching established rules to move the game and story the way that they wanted to abound.

Unless you grasp the flipside of Out-of-Rules moments and why they are not a net good you are not going to understand the mentality behind 'MTP = you just lost the game'.

Finally someone with sanity has appeared.

This is why I'm opposed to MTP because the DM is the final arbiter in that scenario and I've never seen that not turn the DM into a total jackass. I have never in my life experienced a moment where throwing the rules out the window has been anything but tiresome and resentment causing.

[name_here]

Maybe you should not let total jackasses DM your games.

Honestly, you do have something of a point in that it can pose a problem, but certainly my experience has not been that it is a universal and resentment-causing issue.

Wait, you played in games DM'd by Mr. GC. That probably explains it.

[Mistborn]

Maybe you should not let total jackasses DM your games.

Honestly, you do have something of a point in that it can pose a problem, but certainly my experience has not been that it is a universal and resentment-causing issue.

Wait, you played in games DM'd by Mr. GC. That probably explains it.

You're misrepresenting what I said. My expirience is that that set of DMs who toss out rules and DMs who are assholes is an overlapping set. I posit this is because most if not all people can not be trusted with that level of power.

GC wasn't the one running that game I never got a chance to play anyway but if I did I don't think would have had any problems.

[nockermensch]

Out of rule moments are a fun and expected part of RPGs, but it's very hard to talk about them as you talk about the codified parts. How should RPG books deal with this, to avoid creating more people with the false idea that "MTP = you just lost the game"?

This is only half the story. Out-of-Rule moments are a tiresome and resentment-causing (yet expected) part of RPGs.

That's not just an ironic inversion. The number of TTRPG parodies and satires that rely on a player or DM abusing rules ambiguity and/or MTP to frustrate other people at the table are countless. Horror stories of DMs ditching established rules to move the game and story the way that they wanted to abound.

Unless you grasp the flipside of Out-of-Rules moments and why they are not a net good you are not going to understand the mentality behind 'MTP = you just lost the game'.

The way I see, this is another incentive to treat these moments better. My reading of RPG books is that they have been ignoring how to effectively deal with out of rules moments for decades, with the implicit understanding that the MCs would "get" what rule 0 means. The result of this negligence is also a lot of jarring and frustrating moments.

A part of this problem is surely that you need some kind of rule framework to enforce fairness. In a group where the MC is playing favorites, the NPCs can give the best rewards just that character to the frustration and resentment of the other players. That obviously suck, and just as obviously, the "everything else that's not covered by the rules" session should adress these pitfalls.

I imagine a ToC for that session like...

On being the world and everything else on it.

• Don't be a dick
• The world belongs to the players too, don't be a dick
• You're all playing a RPG to have a good time, so don't be a dick
• What a spotlight is, and why it should rotate between your players
• How to keep your players challenged and their characters alive. A guide on tight-rope walking.
• Tangled storylines, or "what do you mean, my long lost brother burned your home village?"
• On resolving personal disputes
  • So, someone you don't like is in your game. How to resolve this as grown-ups.
• What happens when your girlfriend joins the game.
• MTP and you
• Seriously now, don't be a dick

And in the PHB equivalent, a similar session on how to behave intended for the players:

So you are the hero:

• Don't be a dick
• So you got to be Piccolo: How to play the bad guy that don't disrupt the game.
  • 80 years of pro-wrestling feuds and you: How to hate a fellow PC while being best-friends with his player.
• On the importance of working together
• How to deal with party resources (warning: things will feel uncomfortably socialist around here)
• MTP and you
• Seriously now, don't be a dick

[nockermensch]

I have never in my life experienced a moment where throwing the rules out the window has been anything but tiresome and resentment causing.

I'm sorry for your negative experiences.

[phlapjackage]

I have never in my life experienced a moment where throwing the rules out the window has been anything but tiresome and resentment causing.

Well there it is. Everyone stop your conversations, this discussion is over. LM hasn't experienced it, so it must not be possible.

[Avoraciopoctules]

Out of rule moments are a fun and expected part of RPGs, but it's very hard to talk about them as you talk about the codified parts. How should RPG books deal with this, to avoid creating more people with the false idea that "MTP = you just lost the game"?

This is only half the story. Out-of-Rule moments are a tiresome and resentment-causing (yet expected) part of RPGs.

That's not just an ironic inversion. The number of TTRPG parodies and satires that rely on a player or DM abusing rules ambiguity and/or MTP to frustrate other people at the table are countless. Horror stories of DMs ditching established rules to move the game and story the way that they wanted to abound.

Unless you grasp the flipside of Out-of-Rules moments and why they are not a net good you are not going to understand the mentality behind 'MTP = you just lost the game'.

The way I see, this is another incentive to treat these moments better. My reading of RPG books is that they have been ignoring how to effectively deal with out of rules moments for decades, with the implicit understanding that the MCs would "get" what rule 0 means. The result of this negligence is also a lot of jarring and frustrating moments.

A part of this problem is surely that you need some kind of rule framework to enforce fairness. In a group where the MC is playing favorites, the NPCs can give the best rewards just that character to the frustration and resentment of the other players. That obviously suck, and just as obviously, the "everything else that's not covered by the rules" session should adress these pitfalls.

I imagine a ToC for that session like...
On being the world and everything else on it.

• Don't be a dick
• The world belongs to the players too, don't be a dick
• You're all playing a RPG to have a good time, so don't be a dick
• What a spotlight is, and why it should rotate between your players
• How to keep your players challenged and their characters alive. A guide on tight-rope walking.
• Tangled storylines, or "what do you mean, my long lost brother burned your home village?"
• On resolving personal disputes
  • So, someone you don't like is in your game. How to resolve this as grown-ups.
• What happens when your girlfriend joins the game.
• MTP and you
• Seriously now, don't be a dick

And in the PHB equivalent, a similar session on how to behave intended for the players:
So you are the hero:

• Don't be a dick
• So you got to be Piccolo: How to play the bad guy that don't disrupt the game.
  • 80 years of pro-wrestling feuds and you: How to hate a fellow PC while being best-friends with his player.
• On the importance of working together
• How to deal with party resources (warning: things will feel uncomfortably socialist around here)
• MTP and you
• Seriously now, don't be a dick

I would definitely pay for a book that contained just this if it were done well. I've played with a few people that could really benefit from these ideas being clearly articulated.

And in general, just like with having an existing ruleset to MTP off of, having a written-down set of common rule 0/cooperative play guidelines makes it easier for a group to sit down and establish a playstyle everyone can have fun with.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Honestly, you do have something of a point in that it can pose a problem, but certainly my experience has not been that it is a universal and resentment-causing issue.

Okay, so why wasn't it a problem? If it's so not a problem, why not increase the amount of MTP?

It's not just a matter of 'bad DM'. I and many others found 4E D&D's skill challenge system deeply unsatisfying -- precisely because of the whole DM invariably having to pause the game and intervene with houserules or off-the-cuff rulings in order to keep the system running at all. Yet the response wasn't just 'throw cooperative challenges rules, have the groups kludge something together'. People tried to fix that shit for who knows how many times.

Why do you think that was?

I would definitely pay for a book that contained just this if it were done well. I've played with a few people that could really benefit from these ideas being clearly articulated.

Your response to that depresses me. It's like when some suits from Naval Reactors management in general think that they way to fix incompetence or insensitive coworker behavior is to have a chart and some training. The problem isn't the actor personalities or outside culture or even the environment's inappropriate social engineering -- no, what these people need is a document that tells them some pithy and obvious platitudes and everything will be fine again.

PROTIP: Daddy Lago can tell you how to save well over 30 buckaroos. Practically any friggin' guide with a GM-exclusive section has the thing you're oo'ing and aa'ing over. Some, like D&D, reprint this crap constantly over several books like it's a new insight. Crack open a 3E DMG, DMG2, or PHB2.

Apparently it is a new insight, since they keep managing to waste our time with this crap without a playerbase revolt. Or rather, it's a new insight to people who think it's not a new insight to people who aren't them.

[Mistborn]

The way I see, this is another incentive to treat these moments better. My reading of RPG books is that they have been ignoring how to effectively deal with out of rules moments for decades, with the implicit understanding that the MCs would "get" what rule 0 means. The result of this negligence is also a lot of jarring and frustrating moments.

edit fixed quotes

[Foxwarrior]

The way I see it, there are two very different kinds of MTP, and they have almost diametrically opposite effects on the world.

There's MTP which replaces the rules, that "Rule Zero" nonsense: Once you agree that sometimes you fudge things or ignore rules on the spot to make the game play better, it's reasonable to mentally add "except sometimes" to every rule in the rulebook. It's no longer rewarding to figure out the right rules interactions to make cool things happen if cool things will happen if you don't, and the DM will shoot you down (in the name of "balance" or "that's ridiculous and stupid") if you try.

Then there's MTP which supplements the rules, like double agent players and conversations with NPCs who have their own desires. Those make the game more interesting, because now as well as figuring out the tactically best actions in combat, and strategically best uses of loot, you also have to work out who's reliable and which advice to follow in order to avoid painful situations.

As long as you stick to the second one, Nockermensch, I'm interested.

[Avoraciopoctules]

I would definitely pay for a book that contained just this if it were done well. I've played with a few people that could really benefit from these ideas being clearly articulated.

Your response to that depresses me. It's like when some suits from Naval Reactors management in general think that they way to fix incompetence or insensitive coworker behavior is to have a chart and some training. The problem isn't the actor personalities or outside culture or even the environment's inappropriate social engineering -- no, what these people need is a document that tells them some pithy and obvious platitudes and everything will be fine again.

PROTIP: Daddy Lago can tell you how to save well over 30 buckaroos. Practically any friggin' guide with a GM-exclusive section has the thing you're oo'ing and aa'ing over. Some, like D&D, reprint this crap constantly over several books like it's a new insight. Crack open a 3E DMG, DMG2, or PHB2.

Apparently it is a new insight, since they keep managing to waste our time with this crap without a playerbase revolt. Or rather, it's a new insight to people who think it's not a new insight to people who aren't them.

I've read through all 3 of the books you mention. The advice was only a fraction of the overall content, and any discussion of the books emphasized mechanics over stuff that didn't directly impact the options available.

Poorly executed mechanics and pieces of particularly bad advice destroyed the credibility of the rest of the advice by association. The writing style was not engaging or entertaining enough to get people into it, so if I recommended that people in a game read it, they might have gotten bored partway through.

I would not consider that "done well". At least, not well enough that I'd be willing to shell out cash for it.

[Mistborn]

Then there's MTP which supplements the rules, like double agent players and conversations with NPCs who have their own desires. Those make the game more interesting, because now as well as figuring out the tactically best actions in combat, and strategically best uses of loot, you also have to work out who's reliable and which advice to follow in order to avoid painful situations.

As long as you stick to the second one, Nockermensch, I'm interested.

This guy sort of get's it (though I fail to see how double agent players are MTP) the rules can't cover everything and that needs to dealt with at times. In genral though more logically structured rules are easier to expand into edge cases. Having the DM pull DCs out his ass when the player want's to do something that hasn't been written up is one thing. Ignoring the rules because you plot/character/NPC is a beautiful butterfly needs to die in a fire.