Why do people fetishize Magic Tea Party

[Fuchs]

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_.

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.

Accidental dickishness happens all the time, to a varying degree, outside games. I found that it's easier to react to accidental dickishness by talking to the person, so he knows what caused it. If - and that's a strong if - said dickishness is bad enough to make care enough to bring it up.

Many things more/different game mechanics could prevent are not things I'd care enough to bring up at the table. If I do care enough I'd probably still pick the "GM, can you tone down the use of mind control spells a bit? It's getting a bit much." response, and not the "We need new rules for mind control spells!" option.

And if the GM is just an accidental dick, he'll listen. Like when a player told me he was not fond of using islamist terrorists as opponents in Shadowrun, so I didn't use them anymore. We didn't need random opponent tables who excludes those as opponents to do that.

[jadagul]

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_.

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.

Accidental dickishness happens all the time, to a varying degree, outside games. I found that it's easier to react to accidental dickishness by talking to the person, so he knows what caused it. If - and that's a strong if - said dickishness is bad enough to make care enough to bring it up.

Many things more/different game mechanics could prevent are not things I'd care enough to bring up at the table. If I do care enough I'd probably still pick the "GM, can you tone down the use of mind control spells a bit? It's getting a bit much." response, and not the "We need new rules for mind control spells!" option.

And if the GM is just an accidental dick, he'll listen. Like when a player told me he was not fond of using islamist terrorists as opponents in Shadowrun, so I didn't use them anymore. We didn't need random opponent tables who excludes those as opponents to do that.

That will only solve certain types of problems, though.

Like, sure, if your DM is consistently doing a particular behavior that annoys you, you can ask him to stop, and he'll probably tone it down. If that behavior is under his conscious control. And that will solve a lot of problems, but not all of them.

The analogy I want to draw is to grading. When I grade the class I teach for, I grade blind. (Well, as blind as I can--the class is small and everyone seems to have collaborated on making sure their handwriting is distinctive. But that's a side issue). And I don't grade blind to keep me from doing something deliberately problematic. It's not like I want to be unfair, or anything.

But it's hard to not be unfair subconsciously. _This_ student is one of the good students, she probably got it right. _This_ student is a weak student, he probably got it wrong. So I cut the first one some slack and not the second one. I try not to, but that's now how people are wired--we stereotype and make snap judgments and have deep biases and it's almost impossible to resist them.

So you put yourself in a position where those stereotypes and biases can't screw you up. I grade blind so I don't have to spend effort second-guessing myself about whether I'm giving this student points because she deserves them or just because I expect her to do a good job. Because, 1, I don't want to spend that mental energy, and 2, no matter how much I do it won't work anyway.

Explicit rules help you to be fair in two ways. First, it means players know what to expect. When things that are unexpected and negative happen to people, it makes them sad. If the rules say that "X will happen 35% of the time when Y happens," then that's expected and people are less likely to be sad.

Second, people don't feel _singled out_. Sometimes, one player will do things that will affect another player negatively. In particular, sometimes a DM rules arbitration will be not-what-someone-wants. And that's fine, you can't always have the rules be ideal for everyone. But if the DM is deciding that I can't swing from the chandelier or whatever, and I get annoyed, I get annoyed at the DM--it's hard not to feel like he made that ruling to annoy me, even if he didn't. Especially since it's easier to remember the rulings that went against you than the ones that went for you.

If the rulebook says I can't swing from the chandelier, I get annoyed at the rulebook and stay friends with the DM. But, importantly, that really only works well if the group has a policy of following the stated rules--otherwise I read the rule, ask the DM to change it, and if he doesn't he's still actively deciding against me.

The rules exist so players don't get put into positions where they have to make decisions like that, decisions that are ripe for creating bad feelings.

Edit to add a tl;dr: sure, when people are accidentally dicks, you can ask them to stop, and they probably will. But if you can set things up so they're less likely to be dicks accidentally in the first place, that's even better.

[shadzar]

I have $10 on the hipster losing by TKO.

which is the hipster? what is a hipster?

[shadzar]

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.

you do realize that "player agency" is the opposite of "DM control", yet you don't understand that player agency is a method of keeping the DM from being bad?

player agency is specifically s system of rules to prevent someone from being a bad DM, by giving the DM job over to the players.



even the fucking names of them both harp of "player v DM", and yet peopel still don't see the underlining reason "player agency" and the like exists?

[DSMatticus]

what is a hipster?

A miserable little pile of tight pants, well-groomed facial hair, and thick-rimmed glasses.

Actually, I think my next pair of glasses will be hipster rims. I miss having peripheral vision.

[PhoneLobster]

what is a hipster?

It's what they used to call "Arts Students" now that no one can afford wasting money on an arts degree.

[Fuchs]

If the rulebook says I can't swing from the chandelier, I get annoyed at the rulebook and stay friends with the DM. But, importantly, that really only works well if the group has a policy of following the stated rules--otherwise I read the rule, ask the DM to change it, and if he doesn't he's still actively deciding against me.

The rules exist so players don't get put into positions where they have to make decisions like that, decisions that are ripe for creating bad feelings.

As you said, the GM/Group can change any rule they want. If I cannot swing from a chandelier yet want that bad enough to bring it up, then there will still be bad feelings if the Group/GM won't allow it without a good reason - and "the rules forbid it" is not good enough.

[deaddmwalking]

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.

And I contend it would not have caused nearly as much confusion if you hadn't put so much emphasis on always identifying the audience for which you were referring. I further contend that not allowing your statements to be read in a broader sense (people LIKE ME) is ultimately unhelpful. It's possible you're a unique gamer with no interests in common with any other gamer - but it's unlikely... You do, after all, play with a group. One would presume that the types of things you like are liked by gamers who play in a similar way and seem to like other similar things. Saying 'this is my personal opinion and it may or may not reflect the opinions of anyone else on this planet' is not helpful for discussion. If we can understand why you like something (or why you don't), we're likely to be able to extrapolate across a wider audience.

For example, if you say 'I like this resolution mechanic because it creates cinematic combat' we won't know if EVERYONE will like that mechanic, but we can suggest it for people who claim to like cinematic combat scenes. If someone else says 'I don't like this mechanic because it doesn't simulate reality very well', we similarly know where they're coming from. If instead they say 'I don't like it, but it's okay if YOU like it', you don't get nearly as much information.

Now, as long as we're encouraging the free expression of opinions, it is up to each individual if they want to assert those opinions politely or not. But each site develops its own tenor. At the Den, we expect to be told to suck a barrel of cocks. While that is undeniably off-putting for some segment of the population, there are those who enjoy that 'aggressive' exchange. In particular, since gaming mechanics can be pretty dry, the hyperbole and personal attacks make this website more enjoyable [for me] than it might otherwise be.

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."

And you don't see how that might be taken negatively? Setting aside, for a moment, the establishment of group norms and/or peer pressure, the statement fails to offer a reason - leading to accusations of 'too cool for school'. If you say 'I like the feel of wind in my hair' we know where you're coming from - and we can respond with all the important safety benefits that helmets offer. If you say 'helmets suck', we can respond with all the important safety benefits that helmets offer. But if you say 'I don't need a helmet', you've short-circuited any possible discussion of the benefits of helmets. Why don't you need one? Is it because you're an idiot and don't understand their actual benefits? The most likely reaction is someone to say 'yes, you do'. And then you can say 'you're a liar - you don't know me'. Maybe you don't need a helmet, but the hypothetical person that doesn't need a helmet is so exceptional to begin with, it's hardly worth acknowledging.

You've indicated that the focus on identifying audience is to STIMULATE discussion. I posit that too narrowly defining your audience STIFLES discussion.

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.

I'm not offended. At least, not by your prior statements. I'm vaguely annoyed that you are giving me permission to have thoughts and feelings. If I want to be offended, I don't need your permission. In any case, I ask that you review your posts and keep one question foremost in your mind:

Does it sound like I'm saying this works for me because I'm exceptionally good at what I do?

If the answer is yes, bear in mind that not everyone will be exceptionally good. Since desiring to be both competent and recognized for their competency are accepted human needs, we tend to have some pretty loaded words for people who self-identify their own greatness. We also have some pretty loaded words for people who rub in their superiority. Finally, assuming you consider the answer yes, what would it mean if you are not exceptionally good at what you do...

At that point, either the things you're doing would be widely applicable and/or helpful (because you get good results despite not being exceptional) or the things you're doing can be improved because you can achieve better results with another method.

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.

Rather than stating 'this works for me', you could try 'this is why this works for me'. Ultimately, I believe that is better for a discussion. The first only invites discussion of your personal results and valid responses include:
1) You're wrong - it doesn't work for you and you just don't realize (you're a liar)
2) You're wrong - it doesn't work for you because you're actually doing something DIFFERENT from what you claim to be doing
3) You're right - it does work for you, but you're an outlier so your experiences mean little in our discussion.
4) You're right, and this should be a universal maxim that applies to everyone.

Bear in mind, besides determining what you are doing and how well it works, people have a desire to know how representative your experiences are. Since it is not practical to poll all RPG players for all questions, discussion about why are more important than 'who' - especially if 'we don't know you'. Despite the generous invitation to listen to hours of recorded podcasts, I'd prefer to get your opinions through your message board posts - referring me to do many hours of independent research just so I can decide if you're worth listening to takes the arrogance you've been accused of throughout this thread to a whole new level.

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.

And here you are, again, making implications about folks that appear to be aimed at offending. I don't read or care about those sites(?). Nor do I care about whether you play the same as I do. I agree with you that there should be 'different strokes for different folks'. It's even possible that we play in the exact same manner. But whether we do or not really doesn't matter at this point. This is a discussion about how to have a discussion. You have taken umbrage with 'universal claims' (which of course can be refuted by your individual experience), but you have not been willing to engage with why your experience doesn't correspond. One reason I included the 'universal claims' in quotes is that most of the statements actually included qualifications, such as 'at least usually'. I'm not going to dig it up, but that was included in a quote that discussed successful stunts. If my memory serves it was 'always successful, or at least, usually'. You objected to the 'always successful' and ignored the 'at least, usually'.

Do you agree that if 'stunts' usually fail because the GM says 'no', that players will usually stop asking to perform them?

Do you agree that if 'stunts' usually fail because the GM allows the attempt but usually makes them near impossible to succeed on, players will usually stop asking to perform them?

Do you agree that if 'stunts' usually fail because even if the chance of success is relatively acceptable the consequences for failure are unacceptable (you can try it, and if you succeed, you get +2 to your attack, but if you fail, you get eaten by the monster) players will usually stop asking to perform them?

In order to make 'stunts' work, the benefits for attempting it need to be worthwhile (better than not attempting it), but it needs to be situationally specific enough that it is not always the optimal action (otherwise the stunt will always be used in every circumstance, forever), the consequences for failure cannot be so dire that players will never attempt it, and the chance of success needs to be commensurate with the bonus given. Now, I'm sure you are capable of adjudicating every stunt on a case-by-case basis with no bias resulting in perfectly happy players in all situations - so I'm not going to listen to podcasts to have it confirmed - but surely you can admit that not everyone is so capable?

Game Designers want to make games that are enjoyable for a wide variety of players - players that may not, personally, be as capable as the designer.

Specialization is a real thing that tremendously benefits our society. Sure, you could ask everyone to make up their own game rules, and you could ask everyone to make up their own TV programming, and you could ask everyone to grow their own food - but that would involve the collapse of society as we know it. Some people consider self-sufficient yeoman farmers the very model of a utopian democracy, but there are reasons it never happened.

Going back to your suit example - you can buy 'suit separates' where the pants are in standard pant sizes and the jackets in standard sizes, so you can get what you need off the rack and it will fit. While this is the simplest solution, anyone invested in suit fashion will be cringing. An 'off the rack' suit comes with the pants significantly longer than required. You can not wear such a suit out of the store. It requires some amount of tailoring to work. Finally, some high-end suits custom-make every stitch - they must be designed with a single person in mind.

You might argue that having everyone always get custom suits is 'best'. It would certainly mean people in suits would look nicer. But it also would be the most expensive option.

You might argue that the 'suit separates' would be the best option - because everyone can get something that works for them with no fuss... But there are issues, there, too. Not every store has every size... And then there are issues where the separates don't always work together the way they should (slight differences in color, different rates of fading, etc).

A game designer is most successful when they can create a 'suit' that 'fits' the widest possible audience, but allows for 'standard alterations' to achieve a better fit with minimal effort.

The guy hawking 30 square yards of broadcloth and a sewing needle isn't even in the suit business.

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.

This is not a response to my point. Having what you want is good. Having two games, neither of which include what you want, isn't. I was talking about having a game, wanting to do something in that game (something that's important enough that it will likely come up regularly) and finding that there are no rules for it. At that point you can create some, but we run into the issues described before regarding different capabilities... If your game has rules for these things, most people are better off. They can ignore them if they consider it too fiddly (or not worth the time) and they can read about it later (if they like). But if someone HAS NO IDEA AT ALL, how to proceed, they can review the rule. Everyone is better off - nobody had to read any rules that didn't want to; nobody had to consult rules if they didn't need to - everybody either comes up with a rule that works for them or uses the one provided by the designer. Nobody is forced to go without a resolution mechanic.

It'd be like finding out your suit has no pockets... That's only a problem if you're wearing the suit when you find you need one.

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

I'm not familiar with the specific rules you've referred to several times. I understand that you don't need those rules. I posit that the fact they don't do anything for you doesn't mean that they shouldn't be included. Assuming that they are, in fact, something that is expected to come up in the game regularly and further, assuming that some people need instructions on how to resolve those situations, having those rules is good. Having them presented in an easier to use format and/or be less cumbersome is also good.

The fact that I never read my Owner's Manuals doesn't impact in any way the realization that it is good that they exist and they benefit OTHER people who might need them.

Ultimately, these issues you allude to (cumbersome rules that get in the way) can be taken care of by two things: better, less cumbersome rules that are easier to use and apply quickly and a bloody index.

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.

Can you quantify the costs? I mean, writing a thorough description is more work for the designer. Having longer descriptions is potentially more work for the reader.

Here's the thing - I've never seen a truly 'invisible' creature before. I don't know if throwing flour into the air will make them visible. I also don't know whether it is likely to create a dust explosion if I do it in a 10x10 room with a lit torch.

If someone who knows how these things works offers their expertise, I'm going to appreciate having it. I could make an 'on the fly ruling', but in general, I'd like my rulings to conform to expectations of reality. If the information is there (since we expect it to come up) I am free to use it or ignore it if I like. In something like 3.x, there is a short description of each spell (along with a long description) so I could just use that if I wanted. But since knowing how spells work is probably going to be important to players [and as you've agreed in this thread] establishing how they work in advance is important.

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?

Here you are, trying to be offensive again. If X and Y are descriptions of Spell Z and work fundamentally differently, along with A and B descriptions of Spell C, and R and S descriptions of Spell T, things are going to get confusing quickly. If you have to pick one (and you probably do), you should aim for the one that can be used by the most groups with minimal alteration. Now, that does mean when possible make the description or effects short. There's no reason to be unnecessarily verbose. So, all things being equal I agree that the short description is universally better. As soon as the long description includes critical information required for the functioning of the spell, Y is universally better. People who prefer X can ignore the additional text... The only extra 'work' they have to do is carry around a book that MIGHT include extra pages they don't actually need.

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?

Look - if you're writing the book, more power to you. I'm not sure that the spells will be useful in the same game, so ultimately, those people aren't going to play together. That makes me a little sad, but I wouldn't call it a 'dire' consequence.

But if a book includes only short descriptions, and many GMs founder because too many spells create 'divide by zero' errors or the game breaks because of ambiguous interactions between spells, I'd think it would be better off with the descriptions that are at least long enough to cover the essential elements.

And since I'm presumably paying money for the product, I expect the designers to aim for going at least that far.

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.

Thank you. Thank you for agreeing that the descriptions that cover the essential functioning of the spell is not something you would begrudge everyone else from having. Because assuming (like every actual example of published games), the designers had to pick one description to go with, it's best to make sure everyone can use it. Since some people can only use instructions they are given, and others can ignore and/or make up anything they want, giving at least the minimum instructions for everyone is 'best'. Otherwise, you'd be displaying ill will toward people that want a functioning tool.

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?

None. But I'm going to have to call this a goal-post shift.

I don't think that there should be only one game on the market. I also don't think that there should be one flavor of ice cream. 99 times out of 100, I'm going to be eating some flavor of chocolate, but rarely I will try something that sounds interesting. Having more games is good. Having flavors that appeal to a wide variety of people is good.

But that doesn't mean we should say 'the fact that your ice cream has shit in it is good - the more flavors the better'. Actual literally shitty ice cream is BAD. Ice Cream should not have shit in it. And if your ice cream DOES have shit in it, it's hard to eat around or remove. Having an ice cream flavor that YOU LIKE without shit is a better option than only having the flavor YOU LIKE with shit in it.

There can be disagreements on other elements (I want a Rocky Road that doesn't include nuts vs. That's crazy - nuts are critical - it's not Rocky Road without them) - and that's just a matter of preference. It might even be possible to please both groups. While it might seem difficult on the surface, with more information we might find out that they'd both be happy if the particular nuts were walnuts. Or maybe we'd find out that it's easy to sprinkle nuts on top of the scooped ice cream, so we make it 'optional'. Whatever. But in any case, getting more flavors of non-shitty ice cream is good.

Don't you think so?

[deaddmwalking]

Edit - Double Post

[zugschef]

what is a hipster?

It's what they used to call "Arts Students" now that no one can afford wasting money on an arts degree.

Hipsters believe that they form a sub-culture, when all they actually are is consumers.

[Zak S]

TL;DR for what I'm about to say

Left handed scissors should exist and there isn't any good argument they shouldn't or that they're "worse" than right-handed scissors.

And there isn't any good argument that somehow scissor-critique is damaged just because you can't claim left-handed scissors SUCK ASS just because you're right handed.

Alternate TL;DR

Don't ask the vegetarian to pick the pepperoni off, just order two pizzas.

In detail:

Saying 'this is my personal opinion and it may or may not reflect the opinions of anyone else on this planet' is not helpful for discussion.

Incorrect. Or..an imprecise characterization.

Half the discussion is what the product is and the other half (and it is a detailed half) is what the audience that would use it is.

if you say 'I like this resolution mechanic because it creates cinematic combat' we won't know if EVERYONE will like that mechanic, but we can suggest it for people who claim to like cinematic combat scenes.

You just gave a perfect example of what I would recommend.

It doesn't say "it's good" it says "I like this"
AMD
I have placed your vital description of the appropriate audience who might like it in bold. "This is bad" doesn't describe the audience. "I'm Zak (and I have a place where my preferences are exhaustively recorded) and I like this" does, as does "People who like cinematic combat will like this".

In particular, since gaming mechanics can be pretty dry, the hyperbole and personal attacks make this website more enjoyable [for me] than it might otherwise be.

That makes you a shitty person. Just so you know. I'd also argue it makes actual change or improvement in game design and discussion harder to achieve, but that's a boring argument and I don't think I'll learn anything from having it here now with you.

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

And you don't see how that might be taken negatively?

Nope. People should get used to adopting a clear and unbiased view of their own abilities and desires. I need ways to make sure people keep traffic in mind when we choose a game time, I need ways to keep from dropping dice, I need ways to remember peoples' ongoing conditions, I need ways to help remembering who has initiative--I don't need ways to avoid fighting over rules at the table. It's an observable reality.

Setting aside, for a moment, the establishment of group norms and/or peer pressure

Anyone who falls for that particular brand of peer pressure about their own game deserves to suffer. I am glad to help.

If merely saying "I like this" on the internet makes people think "I should be like him"--they deserve every bad thing that results from their weakness and stupidity.

, the statement fails to offer a reason

Grotesquely incorrect.

I am way into reasons. Even the laziest and most cursory reading of this thread sees me saying over and over and over that analysis needs to include reasons rather than just a string of insults.

You've indicated that the focus on identifying audience is to STIMULATE discussion. I posit that too narrowly defining your audience STIFLES discussion.

Just because someone isn't me, doesn't mean that they will not enjoy the same things.

I merely believe in being open and honest about the factors that make a person receptive to a rule.

Which is part of the analysis.

Does it sound like I'm saying this works for me because I'm exceptionally good at what I do?

No.

I repeatedly just express preferences based on being less annoyed by this inconvenience than that inconvenience

Your defensiveness comes from assuming a "good/bad" axis, like:

Good GMs like this/Bad GMs like that.

That is an incorrect analysis.

This is a "People who like talking rules more than reading them should do this and people who like reading more than talking should do that".

Neither person is "good". Both wish to avoid the thing the other person finds natural and easy.

So: stop being defensive. You don't mind either memorizing or looking up rules--or you mind it less than discussing them midgame.

It's like left-handed or right handed.

The left handed person needs help dealing with stuff on the right, and vice versa.

"Good/Bad" only comes into it when a person is unable to function at all except with the right hand or left. And we'd both agree that an inexperienced GM is someone who is likely going to unembarrassedly need and want help in many different dimensions (including rules, the social aspect, thinking up material, etc.--different products will help this person in different ways).

Now, I'm sure you are capable of adjudicating every stunt on a case-by-case basis with no bias resulting in perfectly happy players in all situations - so I'm not going to listen to podcasts to have it confirmed - but surely you can admit that not everyone is so capable?

Why does this come up over and over?

I've said this DOZENS of times in this thread that not everybody is me or has the same skillset or desires.

Why ask again?

See: this thread, page 11, Zak's second comment, item #2.


And, also type, in english, the reason you brought this up yet again.

This point is long ago made, it isn't at issue

Game Designers want to make games that are enjoyable for a wide variety of players - players that may not, personally, be as capable as the designer.

Some do. Some do not. I do not.

Specialization is a real thing that tremendously benefits our society. Sure, you could ask everyone to make up their own game rules, and you could ask everyone to make up their own TV programming, and you could ask everyone to grow their own food - but that would involve the collapse of society as we know it. Some people consider self-sufficient yeoman farmers the very model of a utopian democracy, but there are reasons it never happened.

Counterexample: cooking. Lots of people leave it to pros, many do not. World keeps turning.

You might argue that having everyone always get custom suits is 'best'. It would certainly mean people in suits would look nicer.

AGAIN: this thread, page 11, second comment from me, item #2

A game designer is most successful when they can create a 'suit' that 'fits' the widest possible audience, but allows for 'standard alterations' to achieve a better fit with minimal effort.

Only financially.

Creative success cannot and should not only be judged in units shifted.

Left handed scissors should exist and there is no good argument they shouldn't

Standard alteration? Why tell vegetarians to pick the pepperoni off when you can just have 2 different companies making2different pizzas.

Again, because your answers seem contradictory: What exactly do you think would go wrong in the world if, in addition to the crunchy game you want, there was also a rules-lite game?

On the one hand you said that was ok with you. Then you suddenly pulled a bunch of lies about "nonfunctional" rules out of your butt--as if Sword &Wizardry didn't function.

Is your bottom line "you can have your game too, but please make it more like my game" for the sake of who exactly?

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

I'm not familiar with the specific rules you've referred to several times. I understand that you don't need those rules. I posit that the fact they don't do anything for you doesn't mean that they shouldn't be included.

Look for the first quote from me about the wilderlands.

The problem isn't just that I don't need them.

It's that I don't need them and the amount of space they take up makes the product much harder for me to reference quickly in play.

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.

Can you quantify the costs?

I don't have to, you're about to...

Having longer descriptions is potentially more work for the reader.

There you go. And it slows down play to sift through them.

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?

If you have to pick one (and you probably do), you should aim for the one that can be used by the most groups with minimal alteration.

Why are you under this delusion that you have to pick one?

Make 2 games: one for you, one for me.

Left-handed scissormakers vs right-handed scissormakers is not a zero-sum game.

The right handed audience is bigger and you'll shift more right-handed scissors. Absolutely. It doesn't make those scissors better.

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?

But if a book includes only short descriptions...

BUT that isn't the scenario I'm laying out, so I don't know why you'd bring it up.

There are 2 games: one exhaustive, one not.

The world is perfect. Everyone's happy.

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.

Because assuming (like every actual example of published games), the designers had to pick one description to go with, it's best to make sure everyone can use it.

Again there's your zero sum game.

No, you don't have to make sure "everyone can use it"

You make ONE game for these people.

And a DIFFERENT game for these other people.

Is this really that hard for you to wrap your head around?

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?

None. But I'm going to have to call this a goal-post shift.... But that doesn't mean we should say 'the fact that your ice cream has shit in it is good - the more flavors the better'. Actual literally shitty ice cream is BAD. Ice Cream should not have shit in it. ...

Yeah this all seems like insane rambling where you do the thing--in defiance of all logic and everything I've said for pages and pages (google "Zak s" "oberoni") where you suggestI like bad rules.

If nobody benefits from a rule, it's bad, throw it out.

If somebody benefits from a rule--let them have their own little game
with their own little rule--anybody into it can buy it. Anybody not into it can buy a different game.

[hogarth]

"There should be cars that don't have the gas tank explode when they're rear-ended. But those don't have to be the majority of cars. For some people, the Ford Pinto meets the needs of their particular family, so you can't say it's a bad car."

Mistaken analogy:

All Pintos have a possibility of exploding.

Not at all, because whenever someone is going to rear-end me when I'm driving in my Pinto, I just move out of the way. In fact, everyone I've ever driven around with has commented how awesome I am at not getting rear-ended. That's why it's the perfect car for me and my family. It's not a bad car, it's just not the car for you.

[jadagul]

If the rulebook says I can't swing from the chandelier, I get annoyed at the rulebook and stay friends with the DM. But, importantly, that really only works well if the group has a policy of following the stated rules--otherwise I read the rule, ask the DM to change it, and if he doesn't he's still actively deciding against me.

The rules exist so players don't get put into positions where they have to make decisions like that, decisions that are ripe for creating bad feelings.

As you said, the GM/Group can change any rule they want. If I cannot swing from a chandelier yet want that bad enough to bring it up, then there will still be bad feelings if the Group/GM won't allow it without a good reason - and "the rules forbid it" is not good enough.

And this is why so many people advocate a norm against asking questions like that. This is why some people here find it genuinely offensive that you would ask questions like that, especially in the middle of the game.

If you and your group have a norm that "during play, rules will not be changed," then no one can feel bad that you're not changing the rule about chandelier-swinging. If your group doesn't have that norm, then it's very easy for someone to feel bad about that.

At least if the conversation happens, say, before the game starts, it's less personal, and also doesn't cause tension on a game that's already happening. If you ask questions like that mid-game then it is fundamentally going to be more personal, so all else being equal it's better not to do that.

Now, some people are very good at _not taking things personally_. You may well be one of them, but (1) not everyone is and (2) the fact that you're a good driver doesn't mean you should take a couple of shots before getting behind the wheel just because you can.

[Fuchs]

And this is why so many people advocate a norm against asking questions like that. This is why some people here find it genuinely offensive that you would ask questions like that, especially in the middle of the game.

There are also people who find the general rule "and the GM will make a ruling, we can revisit it after the game" even more offensive. Because they do not trust the GM at all. I am not one of those people. There are not many rules disputes I care so much for that I'd hold the game up for - but some are or might be.

If you and your group have a norm that "during play, rules will not be changed," then no one can feel bad that you're not changing the rule about chandelier-swinging. If your group doesn't have that norm, then it's very easy for someone to feel bad about that.

At least if the conversation happens, say, before the game starts, it's less personal, and also doesn't cause tension on a game that's already happening. If you ask questions like that mid-game then it is fundamentally going to be more personal, so all else being equal it's better not to do that.

Most of the obscure rules we are talking about changing come up during play, often only once per rule for weeks or months. That's why rulings are good for such cases - they don't hold the game up, and allow more fun. Especially if the general norm is "say yes, and pick a DC".

There's also a fundamental difference in playstyle between groups. Some players like to know all the rules, all the limits, and then plot their course of action - sometimes, not too rarely, that's "get as close to the limits as possible".

Other players state what they want to do, and leave it up to the GM to handle how. They don't care to know all the rules, or even most, they simply want to do stuff.

[Cyberzombie]

you do realize that "player agency" is the opposite of "DM control", yet you don't understand that player agency is a method of keeping the DM from being bad?

player agency is specifically s system of rules to prevent someone from being a bad DM, by giving the DM job over to the players.

This is unfortunately what some people have turned player agency into. It doesn't have to be a power struggle between PC and DM. Ideally player agency is about the PCs having options and avoiding railroading. Keep in mind that player agency has actually been reduced in modern D&D.

Remember the Village of Hommlet that Gygax created? He stated up every person in the village, as well as describing what kind of gear/treasure they had. This was specifically just in case someone wanted to go looting the village itself. That's what player agency is all about. This is your story, and you can do with it what you want.

Now, in many ways more complicated rules make it more difficult to have player agency. The DM only gets a fixed amount of prep time, so that means that the faster it is to make stat blocks, the more options the PCs will have. When creating a stat-block for a 5th level NPC is fast, it's possible to do what Gygax did. When your NPCs are so complex they take up half a page and take 30+ minutes to construct apiece, people won't go through the trouble of stating everything up. They don't have time.

The complexity also means DMs can't wing it. So while technically you have all these great tools to break out of the plot railroad, it does no good when the DM announces he hasn't prepared that area yet and that action will end the week's session. The players are getting railroaded. Sure, it's by the game rules and not the DM, but at the end of the day, railroading is still railroading and the net effect is the same.

Building a clunky behemoth of a rules set doesn't promote player agency. A lot of people seem to miss that point.

[deaddmwalking]

TL;DR for what I'm about to say

Left handed scissors should exist and there isn't any good argument they shouldn't or that they're "worse" than right-handed scissors.

And there isn't any good argument that somehow scissor-critique is damaged just because you can't claim left-handed scissors SUCK ASS just because you're right handed.

Once again, you're guilty of an apparent goal shift. The original discussion was regarding the inclusion of 'Magic Tea Party' within the rules that you're publishing. Considering that this site considers itself a design focused forum, it's hardly surprising that this was the thrust of the discussion.

The general consensus here is that 'magical tea party' is something that every game includes to some extent, and ultimately, that's desireable. But because 'magic tea party' is 'free' and 'anyone can do it', there's neither a need for the rules to reiterate this fact, nor should any published rules be objectively worse that 'magic tea party'. Basically, MTP is the minimum bar that your rules need to be better than.

Nobody said 'you can't have your left-handed scissors'. Nobody said 'we can only have one game'. Nobody even said 'we can't minimize MTP in a rules-light game'.

So I don't know what persecution complex you're developing, but nobody wants to take your game away from you.

In particular, since gaming mechanics can be pretty dry, the hyperbole and personal attacks make this website more enjoyable [for me] than it might otherwise be.

That makes you a shitty person. Just so you know. I'd also argue it makes actual change or improvement in game design and discussion harder to achieve, but that's a boring argument and I don't think I'll learn anything from having it here now with you.

You are being hypocritical here. Let me try to explain using some of your own words:

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.

It is entirely possible to refer to your friend affectionately as a cock-sucker. That is a thing that some people do. It is done without malice, and without rancor by either side. Insulting someone, depending on context, may not be as 'shitty' as you claim.

Further, the Den does serve as a tool. The folks here are rather good at boiling an idea down to its essence and analyzing the fuck out of it. Reminding people that they're looking at ideas, and not personality and not history, is helpful. Insults can reinforce that idea.

Not everyone will benefit from the tool. But I knew what the Den was like when I joined. I joined because I found it useful. Clearly, if the Den were like other sites, it would not be as useful to me because they do things differently than other sites and I find that useful.

It doesn't make me a shitty person to enjoy the spectacle of discussion here - especially if I remember to check my ego at the door.

But clearly, Zak from yesterday and Zak from today disagree on whether you should "begrudge people a tool that works better for them and demand only their own be available".

Your defensiveness comes from assuming a "good/bad" axis, like:

Good GMs like this/Bad GMs like that.

That is an incorrect analysis.

I'm not actually being defensive. I'm not sure if you've noticed. I'm trying to engage you in a discussion about my preferences.

It would be impossible for me to accept that your conclusion is correct. In this thread, I have not discussed the qualities of a good GM versus a bad GM. I have discussed the qualities of a complete rule-set versus a rule-set that is missing elements that are required in game.

You have further tried to obfuscate the issue by now trying to insist that your original contention is that there should be different rulesets for different playstyles. Nobody has claimed anything to the contrary. Every post in this thread excepting possibly yourself has understood that we are discussing two hypothetical rules sets - one that includes everything required to function and one that does not.

Again, because your answers seem contradictory: What exactly do you think would go wrong in the world if, in addition to the crunchy game you want, there was also a rules-lite game?

Nothing. Nothing whatever. Nobody has claimed that the world would be a better place if the world had less variety between 'crunchy' and 'rules-lite' games. If you think you're defending that concept, you made a wrong turn at your first post and are half-way to Crazy Town.

Now, when we're evaluating a rules-lite game OR a crunch heavy game, we can observe situations where the game provides no rules to adjudicate a required resolution. In my experience, rules-lite games tend to do better than crunchy games because they use 'general precepts' that are applied in all situations, rather than trying to provide a specific rule that covers all situations. A typical fantasy game might not include rules for physics simulation in a zero-g vacuum (though I would hope that a sci-fi game would). In a rules-lite game that lacks any physics simulator at all, the game play for the rules-lite game will be less impacted by the lack of specific rules than the rules-heavy game. In either case, we can discuss whether a lack of rules impacted the game.

On the one hand you said that was ok with you. Then you suddenly pulled a bunch of lies about "nonfunctional" rules out of your butt--as if Sword &Wizardry didn't function.

No. I didn't pull that out of my butt. I followed the conversation from the beginning, and we're talking about two hypothetical rule sets - one that does not have rules for required resolutions and one that does. Please read the preceding paragraph a few times. This will assist you in correcting course.

Is your bottom line "you can have your game too, but please make it more like my game" for the sake of who exactly?

No. That's not my bottom line. If I were on the RPG Site, this is where we'd all have to accuse you of failing at reading comprehension. What game has anyone suggested a specific change to? Are you capable of comprehending a discussion of general design principles without regard to a specific example?

If I said 'an RPG that doesn't result in the deaths of players [note - players, not characters] is superior to one that results in the death of players' [and this is why I stopped simulating complex mechanical traps at my table ;] I don't need to refer to any specific published game for my assertion.

If a game produces an undesireable output, I can talk about that as an issue. Whether the specific output is undesireable 'to me' or 'to realists' or 'to cinematic action fans' or any other identified group can come after the claim of an undesireable output. Once I put the observation out for review, I may come to realize that the output is not undesireable... Maybe my expectations were out of line with the genre, or maybe I misapplied the rule. Until we determine why I feel an output is undesireable, it's hard to talk about potential changes.

As a parent, I know that most people start with 'I don't like something', and then they will work to figure out 'why'. To resolve conflicts, I often have to ask 'why do you think this is unfair'. But I don't expect my six-year-old to fully develop the reasons why something is unfair before complaining. The observation 'that's unfair' is just as useful to me as a starting point than 'it's unfair that she got two pieces of candy when I only got one'. In fact, the second one may not lead to conflict resolution as easily because the premise may be flawed. The problem is 'I think something is unfair'... The problem is not 'she got two pieces of candy and I only got one'. The resolution might be to give her another piece of candy, but it might be something completely different. Stating the problem in the simplest terms is a useful starting point. Then as we start exploring the problem we can determine if additional information is relevant or misleading.

Why are you under this delusion that you have to pick one?

Make 2 games: one for you, one for me.

Left-handed scissormakers vs right-handed scissormakers is not a zero-sum game.

Here you are being hypocritical again. Earlier you indicated that you were happy to make a game just for the use of yourself and your associates. Why should I expect you to make two games - one for you and one for me?

I wouldn't.

Nor should you expect me to make a game for you and a game for me.

But if my design goals include making the game FUN for a WIDE AUDIENCE (which is frequently a design goal not based soley on financial success), I'll probably try to make a pair of scissors useable by anybody. It just so happens that I'm ambidextrous, and while I only rarely write with my left hand (mostly to keep in practice during boring meetings) I can and do use scissors with both hands. I have a pair of scissors on my desk that I can use equally well in either hand. Ultimately, if a product can be used equally well by either group, it is a superior product than one that can only be used by one or the other.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't have them all. If you like having left-handed scissors, and you find them more enjoyable to use than ones that work equally-well in either hand, that's fine. And if you like having polka-dots on your scissors, and I like mine a utilitarian steel with black handle, that's fine. It's good to have choices. But we can still discuss the relative advantages between them.

BUT that isn't the scenario I'm laying out, so I don't know why you'd bring it up.

There are 2 games: one exhaustive, one not.

The world is perfect. Everyone's happy.

The scenario that you're now laying out isn't consistent with previous posts. Either we're designing ONE system and we're trying to make it the best possible system, or we're comparing TWO EXISTING systems. In that case, there's no reason to 'eliminate' one of the systems. But we can still discuss the merits and ways to improve it. The exhaustive system is not, intrinsically, better than a non-exhaustive system. However, a system that supplies resolutions for expected actions is superior to one that does not. We don't need our rules to tell us what happens if you increase atmospheric oxygen by 400 parts per million - that would be exhaustive. But we probably do need rules that explain catching on fire under normal circumstances (and probably with additional clarification about when doused in flammables) - since those are the types of things we expect to happen in games with some regularity.

The rule can be simple; roll a die and if you roll low, bad things happen. It doesn't have to be a perfect physics simulator (though some people will desire that).

It is possible to discuss whether rules achieve their design goal EVEN IF THOSE GOALS DIFFER.

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.

Because assuming (like every actual example of published games), the designers had to pick one description to go with, it's best to make sure everyone can use it.

Again there's your zero sum game.
No, you don't have to make sure "everyone can use it"
You make ONE game for these people.
And a DIFFERENT game for these other people.
Is this really that hard for you to wrap your head around?

So you're asking me, personally, to do twice as much work to make x+y people happy when I could do half as much work and make x + z% of y happy (they may prefer a different game but will be generally happy with what I do come up with). Even if we assume mutually exclusive groups, as X gets bigger and Y gets smaller, the benefits of that extra work experience diminishing returns.

Since you seem to think this concept is 'not hard to wrap your head around', please provide me of an example of a game publisher that has provided both a quality 'rules intesive' and 'rules lite' game simultaneously, with good support for both lines.

[Mistborn]

DeadDM brevity is the soul of wit, also unfuck your tags

ZaK S stop being such a fuckass

Fuchs stop Fuching you're only embarrassing yourself

[deaddmwalking]

DeadDM brevity is the soul of wit, also unfuck your tags

ZaK S stop being such a fuckass

Fuchs stop Fuching you're only embarrassing yourself

Fixed it before you posted. So, affectionately, suck a barrel of cocks!

[DSMatticus]

DEADDMWALKING

I HOPE YOU MANAGED TO SOLVE WORLD HUNGER

SOMEWHERE IN THAT HUNDRED PAGE MANIFESTO

BECAUSE IF YOU DIDN'T

YOU MAY WANT TO CONSIDER THAT IT IS A WASTE OF YOUR TIME

TO WRITE A ONE HUNDRED PAGE MANIFESTO FOR INTERNET ARGUMENTS

THIS IS COMING FROM ONE OF THE MOST UNNECESSARILY LONG-WINDED FUCKERS HERE

I THINK

I WOULDN'T BE PROUD OF THE TITLE ANYWAY SO YOU'RE WELCOME TO DISPUTE IT

P.S. I AM TYPING LIKE THIS BECAUSE EVERYONE ELSE IS DOING THEIR BEST TO GIVE ME EYE CANCER AND I WANTED TO RETURN THE FAVOR

YOUR WELCOME

[SIC]

P.P.S GOD HELP US THIS THREAD

THIS FUCKING THREAD

Intentionally obnoxious bemused rage spoilered because I couldn't bring myself to deliberately shit up the thread, no matter how awful it is. There is literally no way to produce meaningful conversation with the thread as it is. It is bloated as fuck, and post size is rapidly approaching infinity. I'm pretty sure deaddmwalking is already halfway there. I don't even know how that works.

Also, there's the eye murder. I don't want to be a dick about it, but Zak you need to hit enter less. Please. I know you can generate well formatted, easily readable content because I can go look at your blog and see you doing that. I know it doesn't help that you're trying to respond to a bajillion people on points both large and small in a way that doesn't have you hammering away at the keyboard so long your ass melds to your seat, but what you're doing right now isn't working very well for anyone.

But possibly even more importantly, this thread is in dire need of refocusing around some central points. A couple of concrete theses. Something that lets us turn this clusterfuck into a couple of linear tracks instead of an enormous web woven by inebriated spiders. Something I do not care enough to even attempt at the moment, but god would it be nice.

[...You Lost Me]

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.

Please... stop... I feel like I'm in a barn.

[gamerGoyf]

I don't want to be a dick about it, but Zak you need to hit enter less.

I do want to be a dick about it because Zak deserves it for filling this thread with eyecancer. Zak stop posting like a mentally retarded 10 year old everyone is sick of it.

But possibly even more importantly, this thread is in dire need of refocusing around some central points. A couple of concrete theses. Something that lets us turn this clusterfuck into a couple of linear tracks instead of an enormous web woven by inebriated spiders. Something I do not care enough to even attempt at the moment, but god would it be nice.

I started this thread and I'm so so sorry for what's happened. Essentially I started this thread because I do much of my posting on theRPGsite because I feel that debating people who don't necessarily share my views is an important part of forming a sound opinion. However I'm having difficulty addressing the "rulings not rules" arguments that keep cropping up. Maybe we could use this thread to make some better arguments against the "OSR" school of thought. I worry that those ideas are poisonous to good game design.

[shadzar]

you do realize that "player agency" is the opposite of "DM control", yet you don't understand that player agency is a method of keeping the DM from being bad?

player agency is specifically s system of rules to prevent someone from being a bad DM, by giving the DM job over to the players.

This is unfortunately what some people have turned player agency into. It doesn't have to be a power struggle between PC and DM. Ideally player agency is about the PCs having options and avoiding railroading. Keep in mind that player agency has actually been reduced in modern D&D.

Remember the Village of Hommlet that Gygax created? He stated up every person in the village, as well as describing what kind of gear/treasure they had. This was specifically just in case someone wanted to go looting the village itself. That's what player agency is all about. This is your story, and you can do with it what you want.

Now, in many ways more complicated rules make it more difficult to have player agency. The DM only gets a fixed amount of prep time, so that means that the faster it is to make stat blocks, the more options the PCs will have. When creating a stat-block for a 5th level NPC is fast, it's possible to do what Gygax did. When your NPCs are so complex they take up half a page and take 30+ minutes to construct apiece, people won't go through the trouble of stating everything up. They don't have time.

The complexity also means DMs can't wing it. So while technically you have all these great tools to break out of the plot railroad, it does no good when the DM announces he hasn't prepared that area yet and that action will end the week's session. The players are getting railroaded. Sure, it's by the game rules and not the DM, but at the end of the day, railroading is still railroading and the net effect is the same.

Building a clunky behemoth of a rules set doesn't promote player agency. A lot of people seem to miss that point.

and this is where MTP comes into play because it does mean the DM has to make stuff up because there isnt time. in this technologically advanced world, DMs arent even focused on building a world and jsut rely on WotC or T$R to create everything for them. jsut look how many people claim AD&D is both Space lLairs and Midlords by the Silt Sea, all while being The Forestmaker, and Ruins of Zhentil KEep. they think all the modules make the edition, when they are jsut stories derived form, or not good enough to be, books that are turned into an adventure. part of the DMs job is to make the game and 3.x surely didn't do that. 4th was not inspiring at all unless you were wanting to make yet another dungeon for HeroQuest. now i am all for breaking out the board and bookcases and spell cards and Firmir, but i want to play it its way, not as a substitute for a full blown RPG. though i would alter the game board to give more diversity of the rooms and use tiles that give overland and such as was made by people LONG ago.

i agree, and the problem is that most players don't understand this. a DM that can design the world in advance can offer more things than having to come up with it on the fly. yeah 80% of the stuff will be ignored, but at least it was there if people wanted it.

too may people think like James Wyatt that "the game is about killing things and taking their stuff", and "talking to the city guards isnt fun, so just skip past that and get on with the fun parts"

the sad part is that VoH is player choice/agency type of adventure, that leads into the largest railroad there could be with DM fucking people over... ToEE. but in part i think that is because some people wanted to greyhawk Homlet so ToEE was in a way an anti-greyhawking dungeon.

i think everyone needs to play through N4 - Treasure Hunt, to learn the roles of the DM and the player again and relearn what RPGs are.


Zak S., get your players to run through that to see how they respond and what happens when they are classless o-level nobodies and see how your group works as a group?

hell anyone run it, i always wanted to play it, but nobody else has because they dont like starting at level 1, let alone classless and level 0, you know where they can actually let their actions show what kind of class they want to be.

it even breaks alignment out into a better understanding way. or i think i did, i don't remember that section because i use the 2-axis system for alignment rather than 9-pockets to just stuff everyone in.

but i doubt anyone here would play that either since they fear DM fiat so much, but it would let EVERY group see if there is a disconnect between player expectations and understandings and DM ideas of the game.

[deaddmwalking]

I started this thread and I'm so so sorry for what's happened. Essentially I started this thread because I do much of my posting on theRPGsite because I feel that debating people who don't necessarily share my views is an important part of forming a sound opinion. However I'm having difficulty addressing the "rulings not rules" arguments that keep cropping up. Maybe we could use this thread to make some better arguments against the "OSR" school of thought. I worry that those ideas are poisonous to good game design.

They very well may be, but you can't address their point without, at least, acknowledging where they are coming from. 'If you're having fun, you're doing it right.' They're having fun, therefore (from their perspective) they're doing it right.

Most of them have been doing it for so long, they don't care what the rules are even SUPPOSED to be. They use their own rules, and if they buy gaming books, it has more to do with the collecting aspect or the pretty pictures than it has to do with the actual game rules.

They're more interested in inspirational tidbits than a solid mechanical core. They've been playing for so long without one, it's hard to accept that that's even something that should be included.

If you ask Fred Flinstone if he wants an engine in his car, he might be reluctant. If he moves it the same way (by running his feet), it's just 1200 pounds of extra weight for him to push.

Convincing him that using the engine to do the pushing for him is bound to meet resistance - the way he's doing it 'works', so you actually do have to show how it's better. That's really hard to do. The best way is to actually SHOW them, not just tell them. Anything you say is suspect for all kinds of reasons.

But there is one thing that they at least claim to respect. The believe that the game should have an 'easy entry point'. If you can show that your rules are easy to learn and help make the game more accessible to 'new blood', you have a pretty potent argument. The thing is, the rules that we tend to like tend not to be very accessible for new gamers. I LIKE customization, but the more options you have, the harder it is for a new gamer to evaluate all of those options.

In a sense, a game that you like and they like has to have a presentation that makes it easy for 'casual gamers', but have the depth for 'serious gamers'. That's a tall order, but it is possible. But if you don't even attempt it, then your game doesn't offer them anything better than what they have - not because what they have might be considered 'good' by any outside observer - but it is what they've been using, what they're comfortable with, and it still works after 30+ years.

[gamerGoyf]

oh my god the eyecancer is spreading dDM could reformat that post or something so it has actual paragraphs >_<

[shadzar]

However I'm having difficulty addressing the "rulings not rules" arguments that keep cropping up. Maybe we could use this thread to make some better arguments against the "OSR" school of thought. I worry that those ideas are poisonous to good game design.

so you started a thread for the sole purpose of forcing people to agree with your playstyle?

how is that working out for you?

YOUR idea of "good game design" is not a universal one. you can have your crappy games and other people can have OSRIC...

learn to deal with that, and accept it, because you have NO other choice. you cannot oppress people or enslave them to your subjectivity. people have a right to like the way they play, just as you do.