Your Rule Sucks: The Zak S Social Currency Edition

[Pseudo Stupidity]

I'm not a dick, I'm really nice.

(...) once you have decided that you will spend any part of your life trolling on the internet, you forfeit all rights as a human.If you should get hit by a car--no-one should help you. If you vote on anything--your vote should be thrown away.

If you wanted to participate in a conversation, you've lost that right. You are a non-human now. You are over and cancelled. No concern of yours can ever matter to any member of the human race ever again.

I've been waiting for something to sig, and this is goddamn perfect. Thank you for reading enough Zak S posts to produce this.

[Mistborn]

This isn't my house rule, it's the rule in all games I play regularly.

So do you guys think that one is worthy of the Titanium Dragon Memorial "hundreds of thousands is bigger than millions" Award.

[sandmann]

I'm not a dick, I'm really nice.

(...) once you have decided that you will spend any part of your life trolling on the internet, you forfeit all rights as a human.If you should get hit by a car--no-one should help you. If you vote on anything--your vote should be thrown away.

If you wanted to participate in a conversation, you've lost that right. You are a non-human now. You are over and cancelled. No concern of yours can ever matter to any member of the human race ever again.

I've been waiting for something to sig, and this is goddamn perfect. Thank you for reading enough Zak S posts to produce this.

[nockermensch]

This isn't my house rule, it's the rule in all games I play regularly.

So do you guys think that one is worthy of the Titanium Dragon Memorial "hundreds of thousands is bigger than millions" Award.

Sadly, you have to know from the context that "the rule in all games I play regularly" is also a house-rule. If Zak had somehow added that info to his phrase, you'd see the birth a new clueless guy meme that would run through the entire Internet.

[MGuy]

I'm not a dick, I'm really nice.

(...) once you have decided that you will spend any part of your life trolling on the internet, you forfeit all rights as a human.If you should get hit by a car--no-one should help you. If you vote on anything--your vote should be thrown away.

If you wanted to participate in a conversation, you've lost that right. You are a non-human now. You are over and cancelled. No concern of yours can ever matter to any member of the human race ever again.

-claps-

[virgil]

Again: considering the worst case scenario is a maxxed-out bonus to some charisma checks against one target which you get for doing quests or giving someone the fruits of said quests, that isn't more game-breaking than a Charm spell (which you get much easier). It's, at best, in the ballpark.

That is not the worst-case scenario, there is no maximum bonus to Charisma checks with your rule, and the Charm spell is not easier to get or use.

[fbmf]

If you should get hit by a car--no-one should help you. If you vote on anything--your vote should be thrown away.

This is basically just die in a fire, can we ban him now?

Offense addressed via PM. In the future, please use the REPORT function to address violations.
[/The Great Fence Builder Speaks]

[Desdan_Mervolam]

If you find yourself constantly defending yourself from people who do not understand the points you are trying to make, perhaps the problem is not actually that you are surrounded by idiots. Perhaps it is more likely that you are really bad at describing your positions.

Just saying.

[fbmf]

Incorrect: simply because I point out--while saying something rational and supported--that the person I'm talking to is a moron, that does not mean that the argument I'm using is an ad hominem.

For example "You can't say there are definitely no ants in your house simply on the grounds that you haven't seen any because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, you fucking jackass" is not an ad hominem argument. Idiot.

Disagree with central premise. Fail to see rationality or support in your arguments.

Did anyone else think of Abathur (sp?) from Starcraft 2?

Game On,
fbmf

[Koumei]

TL;DR: Zak S is in the process of "flaming out."

From where did Zak even come? I think the only thread I'd seen his posts before was the one that spawned this one, and I skimmed that and my eyes glazed over, but it's like he appeared out of the woodwork and was this crazy to begin with. Are there other threads with a totally sensible Zak, or is there a downward spiral to observe, was he lured here by some form of trollbait in some thread where we insulted his girlfriendfavourite game?

To add to the neutral observers: it directly doesn't even do what it sets out to do nor meet the criteria (for instance, stacking apples for +$TEXAS). Having decided to run from Kenya to the moon, you then tripped over right at the start line.

[virgil]

Rules don't work for people if they can't understand them.

Then your response to the rule should have been

"I'm sorry good sir, while that rule may or may not serve its purpose (i.e. work at the game table) we do not understand it the way you wrote it, perhaps due to our innate deficiencies or perhaps due to the language, please dumb it down or answer these questions we have"

If it requires either a thorough Q&A or a notable 'dumbing down' after the fact, then your rule cannot be described as quickly designed.

@Koumei: He popped in a couple times when we talked about Vornheim, otherwise he pretty much jumped in like he was Beetlejuice because we spoke his name too many times.

[Username17]

From where did Zak even come?

Zak S has the blog "D&D With Pornstars" about his adventures running heavy MTP and kind of railroady games for adult entertainers in West Hollywood (or somewhere around there). Some of his more gonzo setting ideas have been received fairly well over here. For example: his "Snakes are Books" rant was evocative and neat. His mechanics work... well we don't usually talk about it at all because it's pretty much crap. I think someone mentioned his zany Barbarian class where you roll a die to see if you get base attack bonus every time you go up a level, but really only to say "lol wut?" because that's an idea so obviously terrible that it doesn't even merit lengthy refutation.

The really weird thing here is that Zak seems completely unaware that his mechanics work is actually laughable in its terribleness. He's a very arrogant person to the point that it's exhausting to try to talk to him. And remember that it's Doctor Frank Trollman saying that. I totally understand that I'm an egotistical douchebag, but seriously: this guy has problems.

Based on his tirades, I believe that he is convinced that his game mechanics are not only "not dreadful" but actually "very good." Also he appears to believe that he is a master logician and expert debater, which we have firmly established are delusions of his that are exactly as well evidenced as his belief in his excellent game mechanical writing skills.

He also makes podcasts of games he runs. He apparently thinks that these are proof that he is a golden god who can do no wrong, but no one else who has watched those videos has come to the same conclusion.

-Username17

[Sakuya Izayoi]

Based on my lurkings in the Old Man Henderson thread, I'm also inclined to believe that, like Bloody Mary or The Candy Man or Candle Jack, that he magically appears if you say his name three times into Google.

[Kaelik]

So for example, what bonus does something get? Totally made up by him on the spot. How long does the bonus last? Totally made up by him on the spot.

Yes it is--the bonus is on a scale of 1-10 or 1-whatever the max bonus is in your system. The time has no upper limit. If a GM cannot be trusted to do that, the GM cannot be trusted to make a new NPC's stats, or set the DC of a new trap or make a new monster or create an interesting dungeon or do many of the other things necessary to make any game anyone I've ever met would want to play in.

Actually, the 1-10 limit exists absolutely no where in the rule at all. You just made it up after the fact when no human being alive could possibly have predicted it's existence, since it is not a D&D rule.

But here is the thing. The DM can be trusted to do a lot of things, that does not in fact make them rules. Rules are in fact specific things that dictate what actually happens. So for example "make up how much damage the fireball does DM" is not a rule, and 1d6 damage per CL is an actual rule.

So your claim that DMs should just make up a number the same way they make up how many NPCs exist is in fact a claim that you are not making a rule about what the bonus is.

Or, to quote a part of my post that you curiously decided not to include anywhere:

The summary is, Zak S did not in fact make a rule, he made a promise to make future rules every single time you ever did anything ever. Note that promises of future rules that will be made at a later date are not actually rules.

What about competing factions and interests that subtract from your role, what are they and how much do they subtract and do you know about them?

They get the same 1-10 or 1-maximum scale that the players get and (like everything else in the dungeon a GM builds) are placed by hand based on the context (like you decide a tailor's skills based on…they're a tailor so they probably can sew).

So right off, thanks for not answering the question about if you know about them at all. But thanks again for showing how your rule dictates exactly zero things and you will make them all up later. Or in other words, is not a rule. Hey what was that thing I said again?

The summary is, Zak S did not in fact make a rule, he made a promise to make future rules every single time you ever did anything ever. Note that promises of future rules that will be made at a later date are not actually rules.

But it's okay then you tell us a specific situation in which you used MTP to resolve a situation that is trivially easy to resolve with MTP. But that doesn't make the things you actually posted a rule.

What about NPCs who are sure superman is going to keep saving them, how do you decide if an NPC is sure of that? He makes that up on the spot.

Of course I don't make that up--if you had a situation where there's a question as to the NPC's judgment that's a wisdom roll.

That's not new-that's how the game already worked before the roll--quality of an NPC's judgment? Wisdom.

Keep in mind any 3.5 mechanics about divining intentions aren't in play here--I'm not writing a 3.5 rule.

Well first of all, according to you you didn't make a 3.5, but you know what if that is true, you also didn't make a 3.0 rule, or a 4e rule, or a 2e rule, or and AD&D rule, or a 1e rule, or an OD&D rule, or a rule for any system at all. Because you didn't name any system. So if we should know because you didn't name it that it isn't a 3.5 rule than we also know it is a rule for literally no system.

For something to be a rule, you have to describe the situations it applies to. You are now telling us that even though you didn't do that, we should have used our magic mind reading skills to figure out what you meant, that is stupid. What you wrote is not a rule.

So in reality, there aren't actually any rules It is literally just MTP, but he says a bonus you get on a roll instead of telling you what the NPC does. And then after you roll, he makes up on the spot the effect of your roll.

Whether or not you want to say "there aren't any rules" (procedures? whatever) the part where I "make up on the spot the effect of your roll" AFTER THE ROLL is a pure fabrication. The bonuses are up front, the request is up front, the consequences are up front.

Making up a result after the roll is a terrible idea, I never do that, and nothing in the rule points to that.

...

It works (in simplest form) like this:
"Here's your bonus."
"Ok"
"You need to make a charisma roll to get the statue"
"Ok"
(roll roll)
"Did it"
"Therefore I am bound by the thing I just fucking said to give you the statue"

Well first off, you are saying that the part where you make up a result after the fact is not part of the rule. But here is the thing Zak S, point to the part of the rule (as opposed to your own brain) that says you make up the successful result beforehand. Oh you can't, because no part of the rule says that. If you don't actually write something down, that is a failure on your part of not writing it.

In fact, no part of the rule requires any specific action by the NPC at all. You know what that means? Time for a summary:

The summary is, Zak S did not in fact make a rule, he made a promise to make future rules every single time you ever did anything ever. Note that promises of future rules that will be made at a later date are not actually rules.

But now, on top of the fact that obviously what I said is not precluded by the rule, because no part of the rule at any point says what happens after the roll, you are telling us that we definitely get whatever request.

Okay, so I request, instead of the trivially obvious statue of the town hero, that the Mayor appoint me King of the Universe. What the fuck happens then? Because keep in mind, the part where you make the guy not appoint me King of the Universe is fucking hilarious because of how it completely contradicts your previous point.

I could also demand he draws a square circle if that helps in any way.

[Pixels]

Well, that got out of hand quickly.

I just thought I'd pop my head in to mention that Zak's rule is no sense represents a social currency. Heck, the bonuses aren't even a commodity. There is no way to give my bonus to my herald so he can go make that pesky army commander surrender using my fear-bucks, and if I go 'spend' them myself they are not consumed and I may continue to use them repeatedly. Zak's rule really is a reputation system, where doing Nice Things gets you a Nice Bonus to your rolls and doing Scary Things gets you a Scary Bonus to your rolls until people forget that anything ever happened. It's all fine and dandy to have a formalized reputation system - Shadowrun has one, as I recall - but a rule for social currency it is not.

In other words, he failed at the basic level to understand and fulfill the stated challenge, so all this quibbling over the his sloppy implementation seems a bit pointless. It is certainly hilarious to watch somebody self-destruct so totally though...

[PoliteNewb]

I give up on trying to talk with Zak, because he is pretty much the king of goal-post shifting and poor communication.

Fuck this "ask me for clarification" bullshit...people have been more than asking, they've been DEMANDING clarification for several pages. And yet now, out of nowhere, he pulls out this "maximum bonus of +10" proviso that "obviously, EVERYBODY SHOULD AUTOMATICALLY KNOW ABOUT, DUH", which he never mentioned or even hinted at prior to this, even though it would have clarified the shit out of things if he had mentioned it before. There is literally no reason to believe that this "+10 max" aspect of the rule even existed before this thread, yet he acts like it was a given.

When you add to that all of his...
"...I never said/implied I was writing a formal rule"
"...I never said/implied I was writing this rule to satisfy PL"
"...I never said/implied that this rule would be perfect"
"...I never said/implied X Y or Z..."

And that is his entire argument. Say something, argue with people for multiple pages, then completely change what he has been saying and claim "that's not what I meant", "you should have known what I was talking about", and/or "you should have asked me to clarify". But all those arguments boil down to "it's not my fault you were arguing with what I wrote, instead of with what is in my brain". And because I am not a telepath, arguing in that vein is fruitless.

[name_here]

"Speak of Cao Cao, and Cao Cao will appear"

But actually, we've summoned lots of people to the den by speaking their names. It's those darn google alerts.

[TheFlatline]

If you would like to try to write your rule completely and think you can do better then please do! You are welcome to do it yourself. I think it would be a good learning experience for you actually and is something I recommend you try.

I will re-post this comment which I guess you missed:

The charge leveled against me (which I was responding to) resulting in the challenge was not "Oh Zak, you're so bad at explaining things to people who are completely hostile to you, know each other better than you, and very stupid" the charge was that I couldn't design a rule that worked quickly.

I claimed at the time, and I re-claim now that I was not pretending to write a rule for publication. Folks are focusing on their real or pretended incomprehension because it is the only way to explain their previous incredulity at the rule that doesn't make them sound as stupid as they are.

This "rule" fails the request of a social currency by definition. It's not a currency at all but a situational modifiers "chart" (the chart his hypothetical, because the GM is making it up on the fly as GM Fiat.). And that's basically what we have now that doesn't work. In reality all you added was two caveats: 1. Social bonuses have time limits on them. 2. Two competing people can cancel each other's bonuses out. That's not a currency system. At all.

Basically, I don't think this is straight up MTP as Kaelik said, but it is GM Fiat. You're just being kind enough to share your guiding thought process. If I save the kingdom but the queen gives the king really awesome blowjobs that are his favorite I have no fucking way to use your "rule" to predict what social bonus who is going to get, nor do I have even the slightest fucking clue how the two of us are going to stack up if the queen and I disagree in front of the King. I just know the criteria that you're going to GM Fiat by.

[chonz]

Why is everyone so hung up about rules on this forum, especially considering you're playing RPG's where there's no winners or losers?

I mean, I could understand splitting hairs about rules concerning a wargame or a boardgame. RPGs in my experience have always been quasi-games.

Sorry for the newb question, just trying to get an understanding of the vitriol going on here.

[Shrapnel]

You are totally in the wrong place here.

[Zak S]

the Charm spell is not easier to get or use.

Before I deal with any of the other stuff--why isn't the entire board attacking Virgil for writing this crazy thing right now? All you have to do to get a Charm spell is be the right class and level and all you have to do to use it is the other guy fails a save.

If anyone on the board is pretending to be sane or have any kind of rational response to what's being written, they should immediately have noticed this problem and be ganging up on Virgil. Why aren't you doing that?

[TheFlatline]

"If I adopt a rule someone else made up for use at my table, it's part of my "house rules.""

You could say that--you could say "this is my house rule I borrowed from Dave" or you could say "this is Dave's house rule and I am using it"(Dave being the inventor and thus deserving the possessive) or you could say "this is a rule lots of people and I use and I neither know nor care if it's a house or published rule". If this linguistic distinction is the entire content of your criticism, then you're splitting a hair that has fuck-all to do with anything and we're back to:

So let's see here. You're stating here:

1. It's not a house rule if someone else came up with it but you're using it.
2. No motherfucker, it's not *MY* house rule if someone else wrote it.
3. I can't be bothered to know the difference between a house rule and a RAW rule.
4. I do not actually know the rules to the game I played, so you can't use an understanding of the rules against my argument.

I don't encounter this level of derp and "ignorance is a virtue" thinking unless I pick a fight with an anti-vaxxer or a Young Earth believer.

[virgil]

the Charm spell is not easier to get or use.

Before I deal with any of the other stuff--why isn't the entire board attacking Virgil for writing this crazy thing right now? All you have to do to get a Charm spell is be the right class and level and all you have to do to use it is the other guy fails a save.

All you need to make a Charisma check is have a Charisma score, which everyone has. Having to be the right class/level very specifically means not everyone can do it.

[TheFlatline]

Why is everyone so hung up about rules on this forum, especially considering you're playing RPG's where there's no winners or losers?

I mean, I could understand splitting hairs about rules concerning a wargame or a boardgame. RPGs in my experience have always been quasi-games.

Sorry for the newb question, just trying to get an understanding of the vitriol going on here.

*hands you asbestos underwear*

[TheFlatline]

the Charm spell is not easier to get or use.

Before I deal with any of the other stuff--why isn't the entire board attacking Virgil for writing this crazy thing right now? All you have to do to get a Charm spell is be the right class and level and all you have to do to use it is the other guy fails a save.

All you need to make a Charisma check is have a Charisma score, which everyone has. Having to be the right class/level very specifically means not everyone can do it.

Even corpses and skeletons have a charisma score. It's 1.