Why do people fetishize Magic Tea Party

[Username17]

1. So then say what the metric for "objectively bad" is.

Because the goal of rules is to produce long term fun at the table for the players at that table.

2. "It's gaming relativism to the point where there's no point having any conversation about anything."

Is an obvious canard, because actually it allows for these important conversations "I'm size M, will this shirt fit me?" "Is there anyone size xxs? Does anybody need this thing?"

The only conversation it stops is the blowhard conversation "I'm size M""WELL THEN FUCK YOU BUDDY, YOU'RE OBJECTIVELY BAD!!!"

So address those issues and do not dodge them, Frank.

I love it when you adopt your internet toughguy persona, because it makes you look like a dumbass. Let's start: you're not a master debater. You are not a grand inquisitor or an unfrozen caveman lawyer. You're just a narcissistic fop on the internet. Your "grand challenges" are not especially difficult, and you haven't thrown down any splendorous trump cards. There are no master strokes there. There is, honestly, nothing to dodge. I could sit here with folded hands and say nothing at all, because you've already lost this argument. Hard. Your failure to make a working social credit system in an on-the-fly fashion was in no way unexpected, but it was game, set, and match for your position.

But I'm going to respond anyway. Not because I think you can be convinced, and not because I don't think it's really extremely obvious to almost everyone reading this that you've lost this argument. I'm going to respond to you because such as this thread has any purpose at all, it is to adapt arguments to address the denial in depth that is the defense of bad rules in general. You have reduced yourself to a caricature against which people can test rhetorical blades for sharpness, because you certainly aren't worth anything by any other metric.

So first of all, things are "bad" when they are worse than something you can have instead. A shit sandwich is bad because a turkey sandwich is better. The living conditions of kings and emperors of olden days is "bad" today, even though it was opulent at the time. RPGs are a relatively young field, and can stand to be improved in a thousand ways. I do a series over here called "Old School Sourcebook Reviews" where I go back and read old gaming books while drunk. Even though many of these books were cutting edge ten, twenty, or thirty years ago - today they are just bad. As RPG technology improves, many things will become bad in many ways. Indeed, all of the games we play today will be viewed by future drunken nostalgia critics as terrible. And they will be right to do so, because future games will be better than the ones made today. We'll have smoother random number generators, more sensible stat arrays, and dozens of other improvements. Some of them will be extremely obvious in retrospect, like switching from THAC0 to positive ACs. Other improvements will require considerable analysis to identify as even being improvements.

RPGs are a delicate balance between Cops and Robbers and Wargames. The wargame elements can be improved by speeding resolution time, by increasing tactical depth, and by tying the game's inputs and outputs more closely to the story world. The Cops and Robbers elements may be more ephemeral, but they can also be improved by making the improv theater prompts more accessible,by making the players' stake in the story more engaging, and by having the game engine itself output more narrative hooks. These are real things that can really be done to really make RPGs better. And they will be made better in those ways.

And people who say that resolution speed and tactical depth are simply a preference slider are fucking wrong. It is in fact very possible to speed up resolution without sacrificing tactical depth. Look at the shift from THAC0 vs. decreasing AC to BAB vs. increasing AC. That's a thing that happened. It took a subtraction step out of calculating to-hit rolls, and things run slightly faster and considerably more intuitively. It's just better that way. And games that do things the old way, those games are bad. And they are bad because we know that we could do the same thing and do it better with math procedures that have been invented in the interim. And in the future, providing that obscurantist fuckwits don't manage to filibuster all progress by ranting about how shitty rules are good enough, the games we have today will also be bad. And that will be great.

Now your second thing that you demand that I answer is actually completely incoherent. It seems to be an impassioned defense of relativism. But since relativism is outshone in its inanity only by its immorality, I'm just going to leave that alone.

-Username17

[Zak S]

I am an honest fuck who tells you that your method is not as good,

A bold claim, strange man.

But this is easily sorted out:

GM duel.

Meet you on Google Plus the vidchat is free. We can even send you a cam if you don't have one.

randomly select 4 willing gamers

You run a game for them.

I run a game for them.

No need to waste time bandying words--you can simply put up.

...or shut up.

It will be conclusively proven rather than having to type all day.

Gauntlet thrown, guy.

[Zak S]

(filler filler filler)

So first of all, things are "bad" when they are worse than something you can have instead.

Agreed.

(general examples but no description of a metric or diagnostic, which is what was asked for)

Look at the shift from THAC0 vs. decreasing AC to BAB vs. increasing AC. That's a thing that happened.

That's a good example of a change that works for almost everyone I know.

What you've failed to address is the actual question:

Faced with changes that improve some peoples' game and make other peoples' games worse, how do you decide which to pick?

What is the diagnostic?

Now your second thing that you demand that I answer is actually completely incoherent. It seems to be an impassioned defense of relativism. But since relativism is outshone in its inanity only by its immorality, I'm just going to leave that alone.

You claimed explaining which part of the audience your rules are for makes it so "there's no point in having a conversation about anything".

Then you were given 2 examples of useful conversations you could have under those conditions. ("I'm size M, will this shirt fit me?" "Is there anyone size xxs? Does anybody need this thing?")

And when asked about these examples which clearly prove your claim is inaccurate, you resort to a vague philosophical abstraction.

Address it instead of dodging it, Frank.

You either grasp that more than one T shirt size exists or you do not--and the world does not know which.

If the first, you might be rational and it might want to talk to you. If the second--you are truly insane, and it would help everyone to know that.

[Pseudo Stupidity]

I hate-read this thread, and these last few posts really cement some things that were just solid theories before.

Holy shit, Zak really is stupid as fuck. When faced with "There are improvements that are straight up improvements," he says "but what if those improvements make things worse?" That isn't even an option.

Zak, some things are just fucking better than other things. Faster conflict resolution without a loss of depth is always good, and there will never be a situation where the inverse is true. You are just wrong about shit. Good rules will always be better than no rules, because you can take the good rules or not use them if you think you have better ones.

If your group doesn't want rules for something you don't have to use those rules.

If somebody doesn't want the T-shirt (GOD THIS IS DUMB) of 3E grapple they can just not wear it. You can make your own T-shirt, but don't tell me that being sold a pile of cotton is as good as a T-shirt. A tailor could make a better shirt out of cotton, but I'd rather have a T-shirt because I know it works.

That analogy is just...fuck.

[Zak S]

"There are improvements that are straight up improvements," he says "but what if those improvements make things worse?" That isn't even an option.

Incorrect. I have been given one example of a straightup improvement, andI agreed that it was.

I then brought up other alleged improvements that were debatable.

Do try to keep up.

Good rules will always be better than no rules, because you can take the good rules or not use them if you think you have better ones.

Search this thread for "zak s" and"wilderlands" to see a fine example of that not being true.

[K]

This thread is more amusing now that it's an ethical fight of relativism vs. utilitarianism.

I have $10 on the hipster losing by TKO.

[gamerGoyf]

] You have reduced yourself to a caricature against which people can test rhetorical blades for sharpness, because you certainly aren't worth anything by any other metric.

Mission motherfukcing accomplished

Some players would rather ask the GM these 20 questions than memorize the rulebook.

You aren't morally superior to them (or inferior). They're just different people than you

OK first things first, the thing you're doing where you make every sentence it's own paragraph. Stop doing that it's an eyesore. Secondly this argument you just made is fractally wrong. Yes some people will play 20 questions regardless how many rulings the GM makes. That's bad for the game it makes things drag out longer. That person isn't morally inferior but he is making the game less fun for everyone else at the table by taking significantly more time to declare actions than he would if he actually knew the rules, and in a rulings heavy game you can't not be that guy because the rules are unknowable without 20 questions. The reverse is not true you moron.

[Zak S]

\ Yes some people will play 20 questions regardless how many rulings the GM makes. That's bad for the game it makes things drag out longer.

Again: time spent with friends playing the game (and even spent talking rules--which is what you are doing as a leisure activity right now on the internet) is time well spent. It's fun for many people.

Some (not all) people like to spend a few seconds time in the game answering trivial rules questions with friends instead of spending time before the game alone reading a rulebook.

And they like it way better than ceasing the conversation to look a rule up. Which, for them, makes the game worse.

So if the game takes collectively 5 minutes longer (5 fun minutes that nobody regrets) that is, for these people, better than 5, or 10, or 20 or any other amount of time reading a rulebook alone in order to avoid those 5 (fun) minutes happening.


Here is the problem you are having:

These people aren't you.

So you're like FOR ME X IS MORE FUN THAN Y, THEREFORE THIS MUST BE TRUE FOR EVERYONE BECAUSE....no reason given.


Please type something to let us all know whether you have understood this or not.

If not, ask a question about it, and you'll get an answer.

[JonSetanta]

All I know is that I will be playing D&D Next again tomorrow.
The rules are free. We all read them. We know how to play by a set of rules and follow them, with slight adjustments as by DM's choice and player agreement, but that is few.

If not for a ruleset I wouldn't show up.

[gamerGoyf]

Again: time spent with friends playing the game (and even spent talking rules--which is what you are doing as a leisure activity right now on the internet) is time well spent. It's fun for many people.

Some (not all) people like to spend a few seconds time in the game answering trivial rules questions with friends instead of spending time before the game alone reading a rulebook.

And they like it way better than ceasing the conversation to look a rule up. Which, for them, makes the game worse.

So if the game takes collectively 5 minutes longer (5 fun minutes that nobody regrets) that is, for these people, better than 5, or 10, or 20 or any other amount of time reading a rulebook alone in order to avoid those 5 (fun) minutes happening.

Please type something to let us all know whether you have understood this or not.

If not, ask a question about it, and you'll get an answer.

I just told you your post formating was eyecancer, why are you still posting eyecancer? It not very neighborly that's for sure.

Once again no shutting the game down to argue about minutia is bad, having to potentially do every time you take an action is bad. Do you never play RPGs as opposed to GMing them, have huge blocks of time when it isn't you turn is bad, it means people wander off to play smash bros.

[Zak S]

Some (not all) people like to spend a few seconds time in the game answering trivial rules questions with friends instead of spending time before the game alone reading a rulebook.

And they like it way better than ceasing the conversation to look a rule up. Which, for them, makes the game worse..

Once again no shutting the game down to argue about minutia is bad, having to potentially do every time you take an action is bad.

"i would rather eat peanut butter than jelly!"

"NO YOU WOULDN'T! I KNOW BECAUSE..." (wait, you don't)

Your argument makes no sense.

Do you never play RPGs as opposed to GMing them, have huge blocks of time when it isn't you turn is bad, it means people wander off to play smash bros.

And, yeah, I play (as opposed to GM) in several games a week. I never "wander off" while talkingrules.


And for the third time.

If you don't believe me, you are invited to come play a game.

It's your word against mine: come do some research. If you're so sure of yourself you will be vindicated and it will of course be a glorious moment for you.

[deaddmwalking]

Here is the problem you are having:

These people aren't you.

So you're like FOR ME X IS MORE FUN THAN Y, THEREFORE THIS MUST BE TRUE FOR EVERYONE BECAUSE....no reason given.

And your problem is... that you're white knighting for an opinion that it is possible nobody has. I mean, who are these hypothetical people who might object? Why aren't they speaking for themselves?

A discussion where someone says 'this sucks' can be productive if someone defends it. But you're not defending any particular position. You claim that rules are good, and you use them. Everyone else in this thread claims that rules are good, and they use them.

What is the substance of the disagreement? That they're not considering a possible minority that prefers no rules at all? If that's the case, where is this minority?

[Zak S]

Here is the problem you are having:

These people aren't you.

So you're like FOR ME X IS MORE FUN THAN Y, THEREFORE THIS MUST BE TRUE FOR EVERYONE BECAUSE....no reason given.

And your problem is... that you're white knighting for an opinion that it is possible nobody has. I mean, who are these hypothetical people who might object? Why aren't they speaking for themselves?

A discussion where someone says 'this sucks' can be productive if someone defends it. But you're not defending any particular position. You claim that rules are good, and you use them. Everyone else in this thread claims that rules are good, and they use them.

What is the substance of the disagreement? That they're not considering a possible minority that prefers no rules at all? If that's the case, where is this minority?

I am defending my own position.

Here's what happens (a microcosm is on pg 1 of this thread, so you can check)

I say something.

Someone doesn't understand how it works practically.

Instead of doing what a grown-up would do and asking a question about how it works practically they assume any part they don't know in detail is done in some insane way (again, see pg 1 of the thread, where someone assumes people in my game succeed in anything they attempt)

I then fact-check it.

-

So:

Some rules are good for my group.

Some rules are bad for my group.

Some rules, good or bad, are worth less to my group than the cost of looking them up or memorizing them.

For an example of such a rule AGAIN search this thread for "Zak S" "wilderlands".

As for the implications for game design, see page 11, Zak S, second comment.

For the implications for discussion of rules, search this thread for "Zak S" "xxs"

[Kaelik]

EDITED for lack of eye cancer:

I am an honest fuck who tells you that your method is not as good,

A bold claim, strange man. But this is easily sorted out: GM duel. Meet you on Google Plus the vidchat is free. We can even send you a cam if you don't have one. randomly select 4 willing gamers You run a game for them. I run a game for them. No need to waste time bandying words--you can simply put up. ...or shut up. It will be conclusively proven rather than having to type all day. Gauntlet thrown, guy.

So this is funny on a whole bunch of different levels, but let's start with the funniest for me: Buy me a webcam? Wow, I have never heard of someone who is actually willing to throw down actual money for the purpose of having (not even winning, just having) and internet battle. That is hilarious.

2) I know you can't read, but this is fucking ridiculous. My claim is that my method of DMing is better, so by that logic, I think that you would be a better DM using my method, and like all people with a better method, the method is still better even if I am worse. My running form could still be better than someone who is faster than me. So even if they had more fun, it wouldn't prove me wrong.

3) Four random gamers. So we have to come up with some method of choosing random gamers that we both agree is fair, that can show up for regular (or one off, I'll get to that) games. Yeah, that is going to happen.

And of course, I have no idea why you think four gamers would be a good sample size either.

4) Presumably you think this would be a one off, because time commitments for four random people, but of course, that is specifically the kind of game that favors rules light or no rules, because you have to learn a lot of rules for a one off game, and the problems solved by rules are less likely to come up.

5) Now for my favorite part. Let us say, for the sake of argument, that we dismiss all those other problems, so we believe that four random gamers can somehow give an accurate account of which method of gaming they enjoyed more. What happens then? Well, let's say that they find your game more fun, are you agreeing that this would mean that your DMing method is better?

Because if it did... You realize that would make you completely wrong about like, literally everything you have argued in this thread right? You would then have to say that one method of DMing is better than another, even if you "won" this contest.

So sure, you get to work on sending me a webcam before you realize that picking four random gamers is going to be hard, or that winning this "gauntlet" would in fact mean losing this argument.

[Zak S]

2) I know you can't read, but this is fucking ridiculous. My claim is that my method of DMing is better, so by that logic, I think that you would be a better DM using my method, and like all people with a better method, the method is still better even if I am worse. My running form could still be better than someone who is faster than me. So even if they had more fun, it wouldn't prove me wrong.

Fine, you DM both games. Then I'll DM both games.

3) Four random gamers. So we have to come up with some method of choosing random gamers that we both agree is fair, that can show up for regular (or one off, I'll get to that) games. Yeah, that is going to happen.

I never have problems finding volunteers to play.

If you do...Take 2 of yours and 2 of mine.

And of course, I have no idea why you think four gamers would be a good sample size either.

Broadcast the whole thing on youtube. Then anyone interested to see is part of the sample.

4) Presumably you think this would be a one off, because time commitments for four random people, but of course, that is specifically the kind of game that favors rules light or no rules, because you have to learn a lot of rules for a one off game, and the problems solved by rules are less likely to come up.

So play for as long as you want. It's really not hard to find people down for a campaign. I got 3 long-running ones going on right now with random internet people.

5) Now for my favorite part. Let us say, for the sake of argument, that we dismiss all those other problems, so we believe that four random gamers can somehow give an accurate account of which method of gaming they enjoyed more.

Broadcasting it on youtube fixes that problem.

What happens then? Well, let's say that they find your game more fun, are you agreeing that this would mean that your DMing method is better?

We can see you do both ways and me do both ways and anyone watching can decide.

I mean: you are 100% sure you'll win, right? You can't possibly lose, so my game with RAW and your game with RAW will obviously be more fun and everyone watching will be able to tell.

Rulings not rules will be crushed forever, gaming will be saved. Loser pays 15$ for your webcam.

State your terms, dude. I'm flexible.

[deaddmwalking]

I am defending my own position.

...

Some rules are good for my group.

Some rules are bad for my group.

Some rules, good or bad, are worth less to my group than the cost of looking them up or memorizing them.

For an example of such a rule AGAIN search this thread for "Zak S" "wilderlands".

I'm familiar with your posts throughout. And perhaps this is where you went too far.

The more that a designed game requires MTP, the less work that the designer has saved for the GM.

Sounds rational, but it's actually incorrect in many cases:

For example, the d20 Majestic Wilderlands has a paragraph of economic and demographic data and stats before each location description.

Even if all this data is exactly what I'd use myself if I made it up out of thin air its presence on the page actually makes the product as a whole harder and more cumbersome to use.

Therefore making up the data on the rare occasions it's called for (even if my made up data is the same as the provided data-- 35% elves or whatever) is preferable if you're like me, to providing those rules.

Let's start with the fact that you didn't qualify the bolded section with any reference to audience. You may not have intended to do so, but I understood the implication that the product as a whole is harder and more cumbersome to use for everybody. Now, I'm okay with you making that assertion if you're prepared to be called on it and then are willing to defend it - but you haven't. Now, if you want to say 'this makes the product harder and more cumbersome TO ME', I'd be willing to cut you more slack. But with your posts throughout, this seems like a very deliberate exclusion.

Even if you were saying 'FOR ME', there is an implication that the designers would have been better served leaving it out... If I say 'I don't need a helmet, but you should wear one', the implication tends to be that I am better at a particular task, but it is not safe for you. If I say 'I don't need training wheels but you should use them', the implication is that I am better at riding a bike.

You've tried to indicate you do not want to make value judgements, but you've been making a number of them. The implication that you appear to not want to make, but has come through very clearly is that if someone benefits from the inclusion of this information, they are somehow worse for that. Either they should be able to come up with a better system completely from scratch on the fly, or their game shouldn't include those aspects at all.

Including rules is better than not having rules. Now, you've agreed that this is true...to a point. You've agreed that 'no rules' is bad. Leaving out necessary rules is bad. Including unnecessary rules is not necessarily good - but having a suggested resolution is probably fine. Since you use a simplified version of 3.x, there is just such a 'default rule' to fall back on - an attribute check. Since the rest of the game expands on the basic resolution mechanic there are few situations that you can't default to 'make an attribute check'. Having rules for catching on fire or drowning or fighting underwater are good because even if you don't use them, someone will enjoy having them. But even if you don't use them, you know that there is an underlying logic you can rely on... Even if you don't know the rule, you can guess that avoiding catching on fire is going to involve a Dexterity check (or possibly a Reflex save - which is a special type of Dexterity check). Drowning is going to involve some Constitution check. Fighting underwater is going to involve 'circumstance penalties' that make it harder.

In all those cases, having nothing and/or no guidelines encourages a hodgepodge of solutions. In the event that your rule is absent, it is possible that some gamers will develop a rule that is better than the one you chose not to include, but it is a certainty that some groups will include a rule that does not work as well for them. Not everyone gets everything right the first time. Since any rule [please read the preceding 20 times] can be excised, in all cases having something in the event you want it is better than not having something and wishing you did.

As my mother would always remind me about taking my coat; better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it. It is true that carrying a jacket can be cumbersome, but the minor inconvenience of finding a place to stash it compared to the possibility of freezing to death seems like an unmitigated good to me... Now, if I were certain I wouldn't need my jacket, I would't bring it - but we're talking about a situation where it is likely to come up.

A game designer choosing not to include rules for something that is likely to come up is BAD. Including rules for something likely to come up is GOOD. No matter how the rules compare to what the group could come up with, they have at least one solution. If the rule is one they could have come up with, they now have (x) number of rules to choose from. If the rule is not one they could have come up with, they now have (x+1) number of rules to choose from.

That's a good thing.

[gamerGoyf]

Listen Zak, please stop doing this.

There are these things called paragraphs, I'm pretty sure you know what they are, you like have a blog and stuff don't you.

I say this out of love you see right now you are losing the argument regardless of what your posts contain.

Because everyone else in this thread is using paragraphs and you are not.

I'm not mad at you right now, I'm saying this out of love because I really want to have an honest exchange of ideas with you, but that requires you post in a way that doesn't give my eyes cancer.

See how obnoxious it is to read this post, this is what you are inflicing on everyone on this forum every time you hit the submit button.

I'm not asking for much, just that you bring your posting up at least to the level of someone who is 10 years old or mentally retarded.

[jadagul]

You know, I think I just figured something out. And the answer is the Fundamental Attribution Error.

For those who aren't familiar (and you should be--it's kind of important), the FAE describes our tendency to believe that other people's behavior is because "that's the sort of person they are," rather than due to circumstances. So if I'm rude to a cashier it's because I'm tired and I'm having a bad day, but I'm basically a decent person; if I see someone else be rude to a cashier, clearly that person is a jerk. (While that guy probably thinks he has a good excuse, and I'm just the sort of person who's rude to cashiers).

So the point Fuchs keeps making--and it's a correct one--is that no amount of rules can prevent a DM from deliberately being an asshole to someone. If the DM can make any choices at all--and under any plausible ruleset, he can--he can make choices that are specifically obnoxious to some player he doesn't like.

Now, a strong ruleset can limit the ways in which he can be a dick, but there will be ways and he can make your life miserable. And the correct advice there really is: stop gaming with assholes. If your DM specifically hates you, and wants to make your life miserable, then you shouldn't play with him.

However. Most people aren't malicious assholes with a raging hateboner for their players. But that doesn't stop them from sometimes, you know, being dicks. Generally without really thinking about it. A detailed ruleset won't stop anyone from being a dick deliberately. But it can stop you from being a dick _on accident_.

And this is where the Fundamental Attribution Error comes in. If you treat dickishness as a binary state-- if you think people as "are dicks" or "aren't dicks"--then the solution to player dickishness is to go play with other people, who aren't dicks. You don't need rules to help you not dick your players over, because you know you're not a dick, and thus you won't be a dick to them. If you're playing with someone who's a dick to you, that's because he is, fundamentally, a dick, and you should go play with other people who aren't.

But dickishness isn't a binary state. No one is a dick all the time, and everyone is a dick on occasion. Even if they're trying not to be. And a good rule framework will help you avoid being a dick unintentionally. Both by making rules against certain types of dickish behavior, and by keeping you from having to make the type of choices that can easily be unintentionally dickish.

[Cyberzombie]

Listen Zak, please stop doing this.

There are these things called paragraphs, I'm pretty sure you know what they are, you like have a blog and stuff don't you.

I say this out of love you see right now you are losing the argument regardless of what your posts contain.

Because everyone else in this thread is using paragraphs and you are not.

That's for sure. I can't even read his posts because of the godawful formatting.

[TiaC]

Jadagul, after reading your post the word dick has stopped sounding like a real word.

[Zak S]

Even if all this data is exactly what I'd use myself if I made it up out of thin air its presence on the page actually makes the product as a whole harder and more cumbersome to use.

Now, if you want to say 'this makes the product harder and more cumbersome TO ME', I'd be willing to cut you more slack.

Well that's what I meant.

So there you go.

See all the confusion and bad blood caused by not saying "for me" at the end of sentences? I went and accidentally caused some.

Even if you were saying 'FOR ME', there is an implication that the designers would have been better served leaving it out... If I say 'I don't need a helmet, but you should wear one'

"I don't need a helmet, but you should make your own choice if you want one."

The implication that you appear to not want to make, but has come through very clearly is that if someone benefits from the inclusion of this information, they are somehow worse for that.

Meh--if you wanna feel offended, you can.

There is apparently no possible action I could take or words I could type that would dissuade you from thinking I believe that (including directly stating it) so..enjoy your feeling of persecution.

Story-Games and Grognards.txt both have a "Zak S doesn't play the same game as me so I assume he things I'm a loser" club--I'm sure they'll let you join if you're nice to them.

in all cases having something in the event you want it is better than not having something and wishing you did.

Better than either is: having two different games.

Why would anyone want one with missing rules? re-read where it says "wilderlands".

Likewise: Spell descriptions. Some people want the If...Then paragraphs and will benefit from them. Some will just find them an impediment to referencing them during the game.

Both have a cost. Different people will judge different costs differently.

When I say "X short spell description is more useful than Y long one" do you think "Well I believe you but Jesus compels me to not allow it to be published" or what exactly?

What dire consequence do you fear if GMs and players who don't want over detailed spell descriptions get short ones instead while people who want exhaustive descriptions get a different book?

That's a literal question. I'm having trouble thinking how anyone of good will would begrudge people a tool that works better for them and demand only their own be available.

If Swords & Wizardry AND Pathfinder (or your game of choice) are both published, what horrible damage is S&W inflicting on Path and its fans?

[Fuchs]

I have never run a 10-year long game. The longest I've ever run a single campaign was for a year and a half, before ending it - with an actual ending, as the story had run its course.

I know a DM who's run a single campaign for over 10 years though. He was a creepy misogynist, routinely had female characters sexually assaulted and raped, constantly had his DMPCs get all the attention and do all the work, and never listened to any of the players.

So Fuchs, are we going to hear "raping the characters of PCs is good, even if they don't like it, because the other people at the table didn't quit with her" out of you now? I mean, he was such an experienced DM, surely he must know that's whats good...

Does he have a stable group? Are the players happy?

All that matters in the end is whether or not everyone at the table has fun.

[Fuchs]

It makes me wonder how many of the people here have actually played under bad DMs. It seems like some imagined fear, because the kind of tyrannical power tripping DMs everyone is complaining about are not held in check by rules. They never have been.

Weird huh? It is almost like Fuchs is completely full of shit when he claims all our preferences for good rules are derived from fear of DMs. It is almost, but not quite, like that thing that we keep saying, that we want good rules that make the game more fun for games based on player agency is true.

Kaelik, I'd not believe you if you said the sky is blue without checking for myself, you twist words around and lie about what people say and mean and blatantly lie. Cyberzombie has the right of it: Bad GMs are Held in check by the threat of players leaving, not rules. That you blatantly fail to acknowledge this is a sign you are either a liar, or an idiot - or both.

[Fuchs]

If you've run a weekly campaign for ten years, odds are you haven't been a player in a campaign in a long time. So your perception on what players like, what they tolerate and what they dislike might very well be off.

Incorrect. My group runs two weekly games - Shadowrun and D&D - and I have been a player in one for a few months now when the player took over th campaign for an adventure arc. I'll take over again one his arc is done, which should be before christmas. Wasn't the first time, won't be the last time.

[Kaelik]

It makes me wonder how many of the people here have actually played under bad DMs. It seems like some imagined fear, because the kind of tyrannical power tripping DMs everyone is complaining about are not held in check by rules. They never have been.

Weird huh? It is almost like Fuchs is completely full of shit when he claims all our preferences for good rules are derived from fear of DMs. It is almost, but not quite, like that thing that we keep saying, that we want good rules that make the game more fun for games based on player agency is true.

Kaelik, I'd not believe you if you said the sky is blue without checking for myself, you twist words around and lie about what people say and mean and blatantly lie. Cyberzombie has the right of it: Bad GMs are Held in check by the threat of players leaving, not rules. That you blatantly fail to acknowledge this is a sign you are either a liar, or an idiot - or both.

I realize you are a complete idiot, but please learn to read just a little bit. I just fucking said that the reason we prefer rules has nothing to do with keeping bad DMs in check and instead has to do with making a more enjoyable game through player agency.

You got from this... that I think rules control bad DMs. Literally the exact opposite of what I say.

Maybe the reason you think I am an evil bad liar is because you are too stupid to read anything correctly.