Why do people fetishize Magic Tea Party

[gamerGoyf]

There seems to be a sentiment in certain circles that "have the GM make stuff up" is just better than having functional rules. Not only that but devotees of MTP or as they prefer to call it "Ruling not Rules" seem to be deaf to any assertion that MTP might be flawed or inconsistent because GM can "use logic and common sense".

Am I missing something because it seems like this sort of argument is merely a from of apologetic for an outdated and narrow set of views. What worries me is if these sorts of views become the main influence on future RPG designers we can kiss any chance of getting games that are improvements over what we have not goodbye.

[fectin]

"Ruling not Rules" generally seems to be better than MTP. Usually with rulings, you at least get the same result for the same action. That suffers from some unpredictability and a lot of balance problems, but at least preserves verisimilitude.

Really though, every game has to default to rulings eventually (quick - what are the effects of currents on submarines in DnD?); the real litmus test is whether the rulings are consistent.

[...You Lost Me]

Because arguing about rules requires knowing what you're talking about and thinking critically, which means it's stressful and difficult. Claiming the DM can fix all problems is easy and not stressful, so people use it whenever they have to talk about rules.

[Archmage]

The essential gist is that you can't write a comprehensive and accurate reality simulator. So there's no sense in even trying. Instead, anything not explicitly spelled out can default to "common sense," which saves page count and keeps play moving. If you have to break out your physics textbook or do math beyond the basic operations you are doing homework and not playing a game anymore.

The problem, of course, is that most people have a very shitty grasp of physics, chemistry, biology, etc., and "common sense" notions about such are usually wrong. There is also a tendency toward player-hosing interpretations of physical laws because of Gygaxian wankery.

[K]

Erections.

[silva]

There seems to be a sentiment in certain circles that "have the GM make stuff up" is just better than having functional rules. Not only that but devotees of MTP or as they prefer to call it "Ruling not Rules" seem to be deaf to any assertion that MTP might be flawed or inconsistent because GM can "use logic and common sense".

The problem in discussing this, is that the subject matter is too open/subjective. For the typical tabletop roleplaying gamer, things like familiarity, taste and style are much more important than mathematical functionality. So "functional rules" is not automatically equalled to "better rules" except if your particular tastes say so.

The hobby began with OD&D, a game which rules could be said to be.. confusing, to say the least - it lacks a unified resolution mechanic, makes use of lots of tables (a feat which tends to slow gaming down), uses different dice and resolutions for different tasks (d%, d20, d10, d6), has arcane and unintuitive constructs (Thac0 ? Receding Armor Class ? fire-and-forget spells ?), etc. and yet it was a huge success and its sucessors form the stepping stone of the hobby to this day.

So you can discuss "functional rules" all you want, but it will only have any value if the group playing the game says so. The same goes for MTP/Rulings over Rules/whatever - some groups trust and rely more on the GM than on formal rules, while others are the opposite. There is no right and wrong. All roads lead to Rome.

[TiaC]

Because most published rules are worse than MTP?

[shadzar]

Am I missing something because it seems like this sort of argument is merely a from of apologetic for an outdated and narrow set of views.

yeah, you are missing a lot and just jumping on the bitchwagon with cronies that don't think about what is actually being said and instead, slinging around insults rather than actually listing to the problem of "rules" vs "judgement.

he is a big reason why trusting the DM for a "ruling"" is better. there is a greater chance your DM knows what your group does, than some clod in Renton living in their ivory tower made of glass in which they throw stones.

an RPG doesnt jsut happen in one person's mind, the one writing the game, but in the players individual minds. if something doesnt work for one player, then it is going to cause problems for all, so the DM needs to be able to adjust it for that group of players he has.

say something as silly as sticks to snakes... people dont care that Moses did yaddayadda, and see a stick with branches so why does the result have no appendages (legs), so it is changed to stick to lizards. the old sticks to snakes becomes poles to snakes as neither have appendages.

now why would this matter? well a legged creature cant get through a hole too small for its legs, and a snake doesnt have those appendages for when they are needed.

can a game company really produce material for all of this? should players have to buy 4000 books each @ $40 USD in order to be able to do something as simple as that?

some people learned before the comment was ever made in an interview by Gygax that RPG players dont need to buy mountains of books, and WotC is learning that with its edition treadmill becoming obsolete.

when you have several imaginations working at the same time, someone locally must be able to figure out how to make them all work together. someone from another country or state or what have you that has never spent time with the people has no capacity for understanding them or resolving it for them, without forcing it on the masses in some broken form that works for nobody. (see WotC and D&D edition treadmill)

this is why those are some of my favorite quotes about D&D because it is for gamers and consumers, which gamers are. you don't need an official answer in order to be able to do something in your own game.

not to mention the DM was designed as rules arbiter and can be seen in D&D as such from the beginning. someone has to make the game work and cease arguments at your house because Mearls isnt on call 24 hours a day to answer questions, nor was 'Zeb', Gygax, Arenson, Noonan, Tweet, etc.

[silva]

Yeah, what Shadzar said.

[fectin]

Shorter shadzar: why buy a car, when you can just build one from scratch?

[talozin]

"Mister Cavern makes some shit up" is a perfectly acceptable way for stuff to get resolved in a game session. As Archmage says, it's not even "acceptable", it's actually mandatory. And it is quite often the best way to handle something during a game session, because writing bulletproof and well-balanced game mechanics on the fly is a thing that most people can't do, and even if they could, a mediocre answer that keeps the game moving is usually preferable to an ideal answer four hours after the session screeches to a halt.

And, really, there's a lot of stuff that I'm okay with an RPG just saying "make some shit up if it comes up in play". I will not be offended if someone's cheap and cheerful dungeon crawling adventure RPG tells me "make some shit up if a character wants to start a business -- that's not what this game is about and we aren't going to waste everybody's time by printing rules for it." In cases like this MTP actually is better than having functional rules, in practical, if not in ideological terms.

But if you are writing rules for a game that other people are expected to play, and those rules are for something that the game is ostensibly about, and those rules are either inferior to or in fact are MTP, and those rules are longer than it would take to print "just make some shit up", then you can fuck off. You could have printed something useful in that space, and you didn't. Don't fucking do that.

[PoliteNewb]

Shorter shadzar: why buy a car, when you can just build one from scratch?

In all fairness, I think a better paraphrase of Shadzar would be "why buy a car, when you can just fucking walk". Because sometimes that statement is idiotic, and sometimes it is correct...just like use of MTP.

[fectin]

Perhaps, but he went off of those rails, and into "wake up, sheeple" territory with his retread of wondering why buy a game when you could roll your own.

Sure, MTP is the right answer sometimes. He left that point far behind though.

[tussock]

NSFW. Boobs in link.

http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.co.nz/ ... -at-d.html

See, that is what MTP is about, when it's good. A rules person could've said "no" to a bunch of that, because rules for that sort of thing tend to be punitive and disempowering so that people won't make a habit of them.

It's a subtle problem with consistency that once you have rules there's always the same best option, and when you don't then being engaged and interacting with the environment can work better. When that in turn becomes a rule, people expect it, you're not giving them +2 for engaging, that's the new default, you're just stealing their +2 for not letting them engage sometimes.


This too.

http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/20 ... ke-it.html

I love that post, go read it. Hell, read the guy's archives. Disclaimer: I really like rules for stuff, and am not good at what that guy does. "Yes" is a great idea that I totally struggle with when there's a perfectly good rule in the book already.

[OgreBattle]

Which part of that was MTP though? There's rules for everything that occured there.

[silva]

Which part of that was MTP though? There's rules for everything that occured there.

I just noticed the boobs.

[Archmage]

That means Clarence is gonna start saying Yes if he isn't already: Do 20s do double damage? Yes. Does that stack with my strength bonus? Yes. Does it stack with my magic sword bonus? Yes. Is this a magic sword? Yes. If I get extra attacks per round can I decide after the first attack who the target of the second attack is? Yes. Can I trip him with just a to-hit roll against dex? Yes. Disarm? Yes. Fighting retreat? Yes. Keep holding this rope with no save even though I just got hit by a fireball? Yes. Can I tell about how many hit points he has? Yes. Can I carry that while I do that? Yes. Do I get a bonus because I'm on a horse? Yes. Do I get a bonus because they're already fighting someone? Yes. Do the troops believe me? Yes. Will they follow me? Yes. Did I intimidate the palace guard? Yes. Can I keep the wizard from casting a spell if I hit him this round? Yes. In every case: if the answer wasn't already yes, it is now. Because you're a goddamn 5th level fighter, ok?

This is awesome for a "power fantasy" game and totally shits all over players who are into it for a tactical thinking exercise where your choices are supposed to matter. I realize that I've argued before on this very board that tabletop RPGs don't really have "objective difficulty," but when the response to everything I do is "you win" the game has become as meaningless as when the answer to everything I try to do is "you can't."

[Zak S]

This is awesome for a "power fantasy" game and totally shits all over players who are into it for a tactical thinking exercise where your choices are supposed to matter. I realize that I've argued before on this very board that tabletop RPGs don't really have "objective difficulty," but when the response to everything I do is "you win" the game has become as meaningless as when the answer to everything I try to do is "you can't."

You've misinterpreted my post and how I run my game, Archmage.

The answer is not always "Yes" and there are always times to make choices that matter.

For example:

Player: "Do I get a bonus from attacking with a sword from a horse?"
GM: "Yes, +2"
Player: "What if I want to grab the amulet?"
GM: "Well he's a short goblin running the other way so if you want the amulet this round you'll have to get off the horse. (And, of course, if you miss on your attack at +2, the goblin's probably going to go down the trap door and it'll take you longer to follow if you have to get off that horse--so how do you want to play it?)"

The keys here are:

-that +2 horse rule, once made, is like that forever.
-the players generally have access to the rule before making a final decision, thus preserving tactical relevance of their decisions. There are (at least) two resolution mechanisms, 2 sets of odds--pick one.
-the players can appeal--and, in my local case--this never results in arguments or fights . If discussion of new rules does result in fights at your table, then maybe you need a heavier ruleset.

The game runs the way a game should: People have fun, people die, people are able to identify things they should have done differently, tactics matter, they have to think, bad decisions kill, the people who made them later can look back and see why.

[fectin]

I think some/most of your third point is traceable to your second...

[OgreBattle]

The answer is not always "Yes" and there are always times to make choices that matter.

When should a GM say "No" and how should that be handled? If you've already posted it on your blog, could you link it?
You've got lots of nice articles on shared setting creation, such as:
http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/20 ... 8e55fd6817
Where the player designers their own god for their cleric. But is there a situation where you would say "no" to a player's choice?

[Zak S]

But is there a situation where you would say "no" to a player's choice?

1. If something's already been established as working one way, you don't change it. That's unfair to everyone who has been making choices based on how it was.

2. Like everybody else, I have a world and it has aesthetic tolerances (how gonzo is too gonzo? etc) and I enforce them: no you cannot ride a giant starfish as a paladin mount, etc...

3. Don't just give people shit it would be more fun to earn.
http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/20 ... rn-it.html

I say no all the time. "No" is the key to any kind of puzzle or tactical situation: forcing creativity within restraints.

If someone's just really bummed out playing because the kinds of things they want to do are just not on the table in the game I'm running, we can usually come to a compromise, but it rarely even comes to that. My answer's usually "Yeah, there's no potion shop, think harder." and they do and that's what makes it long term fun and we like it.

If you're playing in tournaments or with strangers the situation is likely very different. But that is not my situation.

With the fighter post, what concerns me less than power level (which isn't really interesting to me) is that as a character levels up, the game subtly changes genres. I enjoy that in a campaign and I think it's built into D&D. I like that a low level fighter is one kind of schlub but a high-level fighter has earned a kind of panache. That's 2 different kinds of adventures you can have in the same campaign.

[TiaC]

no you cannot ride a giant starfish as a paladin mount, etc...

Now I want to see the paladin of the far realms who is both a paragon of virtue and completely insane.

[Avoraciopoctules]

With the fighter post, what concerns me less than power level (which isn't really interesting to me) is that as a character levels up, the game subtly changes genres. I enjoy that in a campaign and I think it's built into D&D. I like that a low level fighter is one kind of schlub but a high-level fighter has earned a kind of panache. That's 2 different kinds of adventures you can have in the same campaign.

I really like this idea in theory, but nowadays the campaigns I get involved in don't tend to move fast enough for a noticeable genre shift. If I want to see the same characters drastically shift in capability between adventures, I'd rather just timeskip multiple levels. But of course, that means both players and Mister Cavern have less time to get a handle on how the game has changed.

[tussock]

Which part of that was MTP though? There's rules for everything that occured there.

Well, it's an oldschool game, so probably not, but comparing to 3.5 for fun. Quoting the blog from here.

"Ok, so, can I throw my grappling hook and draaaaaag the zombie all the way through the caltrops once they're on fire""Yes. Roll that die""....20""Half an hour ago you didn't know what caltrops were."

So in 3e, caltrops only work on creatures who move through them or fight in them (and are fairly useless and fiddly anyway), that's the rule as written. Grappling someone at range with a hook is almost certainly a feat you don't have (do you even have Use Rope?). Dragging something in a grapple is highly uncertain, not to mention it's their turn first. Now, your fire will last all of two rounds, so be quick, and once it goes the rope is in the area and will burn immediately. So really, not going to happen, none of it.

And I mean, 1 roll to resolve? There's at least two rounds of actions, a ranged touch attack, and a couple opposed grapple checks, not to mention it's actions between, even if you're allowing it all. Yes, horrible and punitive, welcome to everything that's not a spell in 3e. At least in 4th edition you could argue for rolling on their table of abstract level-appropriate damage.

"So can we like pull the door off the hinges and use it like a bridge to walk across the black oil?""Stokes you're really good at this."

Again, to be a stickler, the rules for breaking objects in 3e would only get in the way there, ignoring them and letting it work is the correct answer.

"So there's a demon and it's breaking out of the fountain...""I cast Web!""Also that thing with the statue is clearly important I use Unseen Servant to grab it"

The 3e description for web would note "must be anchored to two or more solid and diametrically opposed points or else the web collapses upon itself and disappears." and then describe how the 5' square of web left in the well shaft (and did you really have line of effect? By the rules? probably not) isn't really troubling anyone.

"I throw holy water""I hit his tentacle""I cast mending on the fountain as the demon's breaking out of it""Fuck, this encounter was supposed to be hard""I dip my sword in holy water and chop his tentacles off"

So, in 3e, by the rules, a 2d4 touch attack is reasonable, but fountains are well beyond the ability of Mending "One object of up to 1 lb", and holy water fonts are not a suitable replacement for holy weapons in any way (if we're talking about rules). If the fountain's breaking at all, it probably can't support the web any more.

"We have to play in the pool""Yes we do"

Using the actual rules in 3.5 makes playing in the pool pretty much impossible. How are you ever going to measure cover or line of effect or spreads or anything?

[Zak S]

Again, to be a stickler, the rules for breaking objects in 3e would only get in the way there, ignoring them and letting it work is the correct answer.

And this is why I think using the term "Magical Tea Party" so broadly that it refers to anything not in the book --even a choice between 2 or more resolutions enunciated before the decision is made--is silly.

A tactically good idea is--in many totally clearcut cases--a tactically good idea, even if there isn't a resolution engine in the rules that backs up that it's a good idea.

There are edge cases, sure, but there are a lot of not edge cases.

I'd reserve the term "magical tea party" for a situation when a plan's chance of working is based on something other than a collectively agreed and fixed chance that it would actually work in the imaginary but fixed world.

Agreeing to all use the same by-the-book rules (even if you haven't read them) constitutes such an agreement, but so does deciding that a set of written rules modified permanently, one way, and even piecemeal by an elected authority (the GM, ratified by players) is also that kind of agreement.

"You get to do it because your plans lately haven't worked lately" is like a magical tea party.

"We haven't encountered lasers hitting mirrors before and we now need to invent a rule to use" isn't. It may end up being a crap rule, but it isn't playing tea party. (The US military has often had to make exactly these kinds of mid-scenario rulings in the middle of their functional simulations.)

That new laser rule might be skewed toward a (consciously or unconsciously) desired result by a GM in the moment but then since the laser rule is then fixed for every single time it comes up after that, it's then untainted thereafter by any hint of MagicalTea distortion as any rule in any rule book. It's a rule, tactics can be built around it by both sides,there is no tea, there are no cookies, there's no party.

(Note: I wasn't running the game with Stokes and the web in the previous post, I was playing-nor is the transcript necessarily accurate. So the rule nitpicks might've worked out otherwise if I was GMing.)[/b]