Why do people fetishize Magic Tea Party

[shadzar]

The letter of the rules is the spirit of the game.

no, it is not. that is the problem, that some people just do not understand this fact.

is the spirit of Monopoly going around the board clockwise? that is what the rules are. the spirit of Monopoly as printed on the box is a "real estate game". the two really have nothing to do with each other except that Monopoly has it set up so you go around the board clockwise. the spirit also isnt to collect $200 every revolution either, though it is part of the rules, sometimes; and other times you do NOT get to collect that $200.

you misunderstand the game when you fail to read the introduction, preface, foreward, etc; and jump straight to the rules. you not only miss the spirit, but the point of the game.

Plat the game, not the rules.

since you, fectin, claim that is the point, i will let you find the GOAL of an RPG like D&D, and present each edition herein.

the fact that you retards, or should i say 3tards, come from games called "RPG" on playstation, gamecube, computer etc to D&D in 2000 and had no idea what it was about, and just played the same way.. read the controller instructions (the crunch) and assume it is the same as those video games, you fail to understand what a REAL RPG is, because you just jump in to win it, but miss the point entirely that that isnt what it is for.

so i await you to provide from ANY edition of D&D, where it says the point of the game is the rules.

or to prove yourself wrong as you present what the REAL point of the game and why it was created is.

the letter of the rules is only say the skin, some boundary that you ge to fill. but even that means there are orafices where things you fill it with can leak out, and that is part of the purpose of skin to allow some things to fall out, just s the rules have openings to allow room for MORE than can fit in to.

so i await your findings on each D&D edition for their "goal"/"objective"/etc.

[Kaelik]

the spirit of Monopoly as printed on the box is a "real estate game".

The Spirit of Monopoly is "Man isn't Capitalism Dull, Dreary, Boring, Pointless, and Frustrating."

[Koumei]

Precisely - it makes family consider killing one another, just like capitalism!

[shadzar]

the spirit of Monopoly as printed on the box is a "real estate game".

The Spirit of Monopoly is "Man isn't Capitalism Dull, Dreary, Boring, Pointless, and Frustrating."

i thought that was the Spirit of America?

but at least Monopoly is what it says on the tin/box.

[Cyberzombie]

The letter of the rules is the spirit of the game.

No, the spirit of the game is the designer's intent for how rules are used. And often times, they fuck it up. RPGs are not designed by a crack team of contract lawyers who are going to design some loophole-free perfect game.

[PhoneLobster]

The letter of the rules is the spirit of the game.

No, the spirit of the game is the designer's intent for how rules are used. And often times, they fuck it up. RPGs are not designed by a crack team of contract lawyers who are going to design some loophole-free perfect game.

Clearly we should instead rely on Zak S to pull a loophole free perfect game out of his ass in 30 seconds flat then?

You know, like the actual other side of this argument has literally demanded.

[Fuchs]

Turning an on the spot ruling into a rule is generally not a good idea. Rulings work best for stuff that doesn't come up often enough to need a rule - whole social interaction systems usually do not fall into that category.

[Sakuya Izayoi]

the spirit of Monopoly as printed on the box is a "real estate game".

The Spirit of Monopoly is "Man isn't Capitalism Dull, Dreary, Boring, Pointless, and Frustrating."

i thought that was the Spirit of America?

but at least Monopoly is what it says on the tin/box.

Actually, the box contains several lies, such as "fun", "fast-paced", "strategy", and "classic".

[shadzar]

The Spirit of Monopoly is "Man isn't Capitalism Dull, Dreary, Boring, Pointless, and Frustrating."

i thought that was the Spirit of America?

but at least Monopoly is what it says on the tin/box.

Actually, the box contains several lies, such as "fun", "fast-paced", "strategy", and "classic".

not mine. you must have one of the post-Reagan era ones or something.

[Blade]

The people I play with consider that it is more important to consider the intent of the rules rather than the letter. In some cases, it's hard to really figure what was the intent, but in most cases, it just requires some common sense.

And they also consider that when a rule makes not much sense (let's say a rule that would allow a normal human to run at 100km/h), it's probably because there's a glitch somewhere.

But I know that there are people who consider that the letter of the rules should be applied at all time, and that when a rule makes not much sense, it's because the game's universe is like this. So if a rule makes it possible for a normal human to run at 100km/h they'll consider that it's because in that world, it's possible. If a NPC has no language listed in his character sheet, they'll either consider that the NPC has no language, or they'll clearly state to their table that they're making a house rule to give the NPC the ability to communicate.

To each their own, I guess.

[Kaelik]

The people I play with consider that it is more important to consider the intent of the rules rather than the letter. In some cases, it's hard to really figure what was the intent, but in most cases, it just requires some common sense.

You know, the funny thing is that this exact same thing applies to the law. Every judge knows that you are supposed to consider the intent of the law, and every judge is sure in every case that all it takes is a little common sense to know what the intent was.

Oh course, they all drastically disagree one what the intent actually is quite frequently, but you know, why let a little thing like reality get involved.

Application to the current case: Everyone else also thinks they know the intent of the rules, they just disagree with you on what the intent is. Your solution: Shove a giant flaming spider up their ass because fuck those asshole players.

[Blade]

In my gaming groups we tend to have the same ideas about most of the what the intents are.

There are a few cases where we do disagree, but in that case, the consensus is that it's up to the current GM to choose the interpretation he uses, and that he has to stick to it for the full duration of the game.

But I guess that's because we don't have any giant spiders around here.

[MGuy]

In my gaming groups we tend to have the same ideas about most of the what the intents are.

There are a few cases where we do disagree, but in that case, the consensus is that it's up to the current GM to choose the interpretation he uses, and that he has to stick to it for the full duration of the game.

But I guess that's because we don't have any giant spiders around here.

Luckily you and your players are representative of all the gaming popul... oh wait. Look, whatever you and your players do that works for you is fine. No one here has tried to tell anyone that they 'cannot' do whatever at their own table. However when discussing how to make actual good rules for more than 'your' gaming group it is better to be as clear as possible so that as many people as possible can know what a rule is actually supposed to do/mean. If you don't have an argument against or for that idea then you have no position worth arguing.

[PoliteNewb]

You know, the funny thing is that this exact same thing applies to the law. Every judge knows that you are supposed to consider the intent of the law, and every judge is sure in every case that all it takes is a little common sense to know what the intent was.

Oh course, they all drastically disagree one what the intent actually is quite frequently, but you know, why let a little thing like reality get involved.

Application to the current case: Everyone else also thinks they know the intent of the rules, they just disagree with you on what the intent is. Your solution: Shove a giant flaming spider up their ass because fuck those asshole players.

Difference is, judges actually need to follow the letter and ignore disagreements about intent, because the law needs to apply equally to all people, because it involves matters of life and death.

DMs, on the other hand, preside over a table of around 5 people (heck, maybe as many as 20 if they run multiple games), and other tables do not need to give shit one about disagreements about intent, because they don't rule at each other's tables.

tl;dr if we could choose our judges the way we pick our DMs, your point kind of evaporates. Because you really can use different methods of making rulings when your ruling affects 5 people you are (presumably) on decent terms with, vs. when it affects millions of complete strangers. And that's leaving aside the point that your ruling is about whether an imaginary elf dies, rather than whether a real person goes to the electric chair.

[Kaelik]

Difference is, judges actually need to follow the letter and ignore disagreements about intent,

I can't tell if you are a dumb lawyer or a dumb not lawyer, but I'm leaning toward not.

So, Let me explain this, no they fucking don't, Holy Trinity.

[Username17]

In my gaming groups we tend to have the same ideas about most of the what the intents are.

There are a few cases where we do disagree, but in that case, the consensus is that it's up to the current GM to choose the interpretation he uses, and that he has to stick to it for the full duration of the game.

But I guess that's because we don't have any giant spiders around here.

You know what? I don't believe you. On the sexism thread, you seriously claimed that empathy was so powerful that it was unreasonable for people to ask people out who were going to say no. Now, in the real world, the vast majority of romantic overtures are met with rejection. This leads us to one of two possibilities: either you personally are a truly gifted psychic who is much much better at reading people than almost anyone on Earth yet nonetheless hasn't figured out that other people lack this ability; or that you simply vastly overestimate the degree to which other people think what you think they think.

Guess which one I think is more likely?

-Username17

[shadzar]

the consensus is that it's up to the current GM to choose the interpretation he uses

sadly this is NOT something TGD members can understand because the majority are buttsore over having played under bad DMs int he past, they think that since EVERY DM they had was bad, thus all DMs must be bad, because they don't understand they had a sample size that was too small. and they NEEDED to play the game so badly, that they did not know how to tell the DM off and leave the game. they prefer bad games to no games. they let their wants to play the game outweigh their needs for a good game. or really they have no need for a good game and have jsut all been trolling the internet the whole time and really just want bad games.

point being, TGD doesnt understand how a DM can make a ruling that works as they are not paid to design games from some company with a trademark to an RPG logo

[deaddmwalking]

the consensus is that it's up to the current GM to choose the interpretation he uses

sadly this is NOT something TGD members can understand because the majority are buttsore over having played under bad DMs int he past, they think that since EVERY DM they had was bad, thus all DMs must be bad, because they don't understand they had a sample size that was too small.

It's been a while since I've tried to decipher what you're saying, but I feel a little masochistic, so I'm going to respond.

I don't think it's unfair to say that 'good DMs are made, not born'. The best way to become a good DM is to get practical experience DMing. And if inexperienced DMs almost invariably start out bad, that's not really to be unexpected. It might LOOK easy, but that's true for most things. And if you're GOOD at it, it looks REALLY easy. But to someone that doesn't even know the fundamentals, they can't tell how hard it is until they actually try it themselves.

Being a good DM is a little like riding a bike. It's something you can learn, but it's really hard to explain to someone all the things you're doing to keep the bike moving and going the way you want - and even if you could explain everything the only way for it to make sense is to try it yourself. And fall. Probably a lot.

So if every DM started out as a bad DM, there's a good chance that every player will have had a chance to play under a bad DM. I'd wager that the fact that the people here still want to play is also a sign they've been lucky enough to play under a good DM.

I'm going to move away from the bike analogy because I don't really think of rules as 'training wheels'. But first

and they NEEDED to play the game so badly, that they did not know how to tell the DM off and leave the game. they prefer bad games to no games. they let their wants to play the game outweigh their needs for a good game. or really they have no need for a good game and have jsut all been trolling the internet the whole time and really just want bad games.

That sounds like passion. That's not necessarily a bad thing. Or maybe that sounds like compromising in order to spend time with friends - also not a bad thing. Whatever flaws you believe the 'TGD Members' you're referring to (I assume you're excluding yourself and perhaps others) possess, you're at least admitting that they're capable of social interaction. So good on you. That must be difficult to admit as you hide away in a secret lair in East Texas afraid of playing with actual people whether in person or online. Most normal people are willing to do things that they don't really like to spend time with people they like. But those same people would PREFER to do things they like with people they like - so if you can, why wouldn't you?

point being, TGD doesnt understand how a DM can make a ruling that works as they are not paid to design games from some company with a trademark to an RPG logo

I think that they understand that a DM can make a ruling that works, but they also recognize that relying on each individual DM to come up with a ruling that works well is a Herculean task. Most designers do not possess the analytical capability or the ability to clearly communicate the problem areas without a lot of prevarication that the Den, taken as a whole, does.

While some might make consistently good rulings, the more often they're called on to do so, the more likely they are to slip up. With a solid ruleset you have less need to make rulings, so you are consequently less likely to make a bad ruling.

And of course - if your rules are available for dissemination, players have the option of learning the rules so they can understand how actions will be adjudicated PRIOR to declaring. That can be helpful. Empowering, even.

[Dean]

Difference is, judges actually need to follow the letter and ignore disagreements about intent,

So, Let me explain this, no they fucking don't, Holy Trinity.

@Kaelik What does that mean. Does Holy Trinity have a legal meaning or history of some kind?

[fectin]

http://bit.ly/JcR4CU

[Kaelik]

Difference is, judges actually need to follow the letter and ignore disagreements about intent,

So, Let me explain this, no they fucking don't, Holy Trinity.

@Kaelik What does that mean. Does Holy Trinity have a legal meaning or history of some kind?

It is a case, in which the holding was basically:

Yes, this guy definitely totally did something that was against the actual law that is clearly written in the books. But we don't think Congress meant to include it, even if they did actually include it. So he's not guilty.

The point being, that in the law, you totally do take into account intent all the time, which how we can see that judges completely disagree on what the intent is.

[PoliteNewb]

Difference is, judges actually need to follow the letter and ignore disagreements about intent,

I can't tell if you are a dumb lawyer or a dumb not lawyer, but I'm leaning toward not.

So, Let me explain this, no they fucking don't, Holy Trinity.

Not a lawyer. Never claimed to be.

But I apparently misunderstood; I thought that YOU were claiming that judges (and metaphorically, DMs) shouldn't disagree about intent. If you weren't claiming that, I have no idea what point you thought you were making.

Also, if the intent of the law is more important than the letter, WTF are judges so harsh on jury nullification, and commonly give instructions that jurors have to follow the letter of the law even when it's retarded and/or a miscarriage of justice?

[shadzar]

That sounds like passion.

no it is obsession, which can be a very bad thing. so many people post-2000 are jsut obsessed with being able to sy they paly D&D, they try to enforce changes in the game so that they can play it & like it. well they didn't like it before, so why MUST they like it? because they are obsessed with saying they like it.

this is not a view held by only a few people, s you can see if on many forums, from that one person on the WotC forums to that pemerton, who has proven doesnt even paly D&D but always complains about it and says how much better many systems are over on ENWorld, to some people on here who need not be named that try to take the adventure game into a tool for telling mini-novellas.

there are major fundamental flaws in their thinking.

1. D&D must be made for them to like
2. they have to be able to like D&D

those are just two of the flaws that they fail to understand are obsessive compulsive as they continue to force both of them into existence.

they just cant comprehend that they are allowed to game a game they like, but they don't get to call it D&D just so they can say they are playing a game they like & that game is D&D.

in the case of the DM, it is worse because they have a hatred for the game that they "loved" so much because they played with bad players and blame the game for their DM not understanding the game, and their foundation of experiences rooted in those poor games and cannot look at the game for what it really is pre-wotc, simple and brilliant and ALL inclusive.

after al the talk from Mearls and people like him to try to pander to these people they really only need to understand the real FEEL of D&D, in order to know what "sacred cows" really exist that make D&D what it is.

1. the DM controls everything that isnt a PC, during play
2. the DM creates the world and ALL its inhabitants, including the PC in a sense as he can allow a race or not that will alter what is available, or add a new one, etc.
3. the player control his character during play and can TRY anything reasonable.
4. the DM sets up interaction points for the player to make choices to guide the story.

if ANY of these is broken it leads to a game that is NOT D&D, from the violation of rule 4 that is the transcaontinental railroad, to the PCs deciding what inhabits the next town over.

can you do either of those or anything in between?

5. the rules are only guidelines

yes, you can, but when you do you have veered off of the "core" of the toolkit which is D&D and attempted to make it you own. CONGRATS you are now playing D&D!

but it doesnt mean ANY of those changes should be put forth as the core of the game. but these people obsess over trying to change the core of the game so that it is no longer than and those no longer D&D for future editions.

nothing has every stopped them from finding like minded people (except maybe their aren't any people that agree with them?) and playing it their way of choice. sadly these people (rules not rulings) continue to try to force their way to play onto others because they are OBSESSED with either their method or playstyle or whatever that it MUST be the ONETRUWAY that EVERYONE MUST play the game, pretty much just so they cn say that they like the game called D&D.

in the case of a truly bad DM, the could have booted that person and played with one less. if that person owned the books, then mow some lawns and earn $20 to get your own copy? they (no, not me; i dont play bad games or with "bad" players) made the choice to play in the bd games, and only have themselves to blame, not the game, not someone else, not even the bad DM; only themselves for empowering the bad DM. they are the ones that gave the bad DM the power, not the rules, because they continued to play with them.

so now they want to remove #5 so that the RULES are GAME LAW, and people msut adhere to it so that they NEVER have the option of making a bad choice again. since they are incapable of leaving a bad game, they are trying to force others to play ONETRUEWAY in order to prevent these "rules not rulings" people from getting bad rulings made by those bad DMs that THEY continue to empower by allowing them to DM in the first place.

no game > bad game

i love playing D&D, but i won't play with just anyone, and you wouldnt see me playing "D&D with porn stars" because that isnt the type of person i would want to game with or spend time with. if that was my only choice. i would do without and wait until the proper group of people WAS found with similar minds of what they want out of the game. the "porn stars" and drunkards and druggies, can all have their games at their house, but NONE of them should influence the game design of those "sacred cows" so that the game is no longer D&D, an open gaming system that allows varying playstyles.

there are more "sacred cows" than those listed that dont get into silly "sacred calves" like the name of a monster such as "demons and devils", and those are in no particular order, but just some VERY important ones off the top of my head. and those people that want to change those things do NOT have compassion for the game, but rather disdain for it if they continue to try to force those things OUT of the game so it "serves" them. because the game already serves them in #5, and they can play however they want, so why is it that they (rules not rulings-ers) hate and despise #5 that allows them to play the game how they want?

I think that they understand that a DM can make a ruling that works, but they also recognize that relying on each individual DM to come up with a ruling that works well is a Herculean task.

and this is why it was said of being a DM the same as playing chess. it takes a few minutes to learn, but a lifetime to master. it isnt for everyone. apparently there ARE better games out there for people that have a problem with D&Ds DMing concept. also there are better games than say 3.x for DMing as the horror stories of it being a DMs worst nightmare and a players wet dream exists. you need LESS rules for the DM to have to be forced to follow and the players receptive of DM decisions and rulings. this thread has proven that some will NEVER accept a ruling made by anyone that was not already a RULE in the published book as they dont understand..

Most designers do not possess the analytical capability or the ability to clearly communicate the problem areas without a lot of prevarication that the Den, taken as a whole, does.

Gary fucked up.
Mentzer fucked up
"Zeb"/Winter fucked up
Tweet fucked up
Mearls fuccked up.

EVERY designer so far has fucked up, so why in the hell would you take their words (rules) as gospel? i am more willing to trust to an extent the designers that admit they are NOT all-knowing (Gary, Mentzer, "Zeb"/Winter) and possibly got some things wrong and state so in print as opposed to those that think they are gaming gods that can do no wrong (Tweet, Mearls). I will further trust the person running the game that speaks directly to me rather than giving canned responses to the masses behind some CSR wall to make the game work for me. If they fail, I know how to either leave, or just not return for the next time they try to play.

no game > bad game

you really have no other recourse than to make DMs good by poiting out the errors in mindsets during play. either this is be leaving a game with a bad DM that will not change, the DM quitting because he isnt interested in running a game like the players want, etc.

this all boils down to what i said probably a year ago, that the game isnt at fault for these group problems, but it is the problems of the groups themselves for lacking in social skills or just having too conflicting ideas. the group of people you play with is in no way shape or form the fault of the game design, only your own for choosing poor choices in people to play with either for their attitude, conflicts of interest, etc. but those obsessions are seen MANY time from MANY people like Frank, K, Fuchs, Maj (or was it Midnight V? one of the female posters...), etc on this forum in how they want to change the game fro EVERYONE, rather than just finding the right people to game with and saying "to hell with everyone else, im having fun my way with my group".

if they were passionate about the game so much, they would be playing it their way and enjoying it and not care how others play it, unlike the pemerton's. that is why i don't go into AS or ED or Shadowrun threads here, because i could give two shits less about how they are run or palyed. i dont have any interest in them positive or negative. the just dont exist as far as i am concerned. and as i said that before i will say thi again, i go into 3.x threads many times because they are unmarked and also to remind people other-times that there are things designers leave out, either from earlier editions or the designers own mind where they forgot to add a kernel of information they meant to share either because of just being too busy, they took it for granted everyone would know it (from play or past editions) or just to save page space in the book.

there is no need to make a thread on a forum to find a way to shutdown one persons preferred method of fun because it differs from your own. THAT is obsession, not passion. that obsessiveness i described earlier spawned this very thread.

it HAS spawned some interesting ideas, that maybe SOME people read, but most has just that fight, and to call it what it most closely is "schoolyard bullying" as it is pretty much just a school fight (old v new) where one person just wants to attack a group it doesnt like with no further purpose beyond that.

that is obsession, not passion, and it borders on psychotic!

[Kaelik]

But I apparently misunderstood; I thought that YOU were claiming that judges (and metaphorically, DMs) shouldn't disagree about intent. If you weren't claiming that, I have no idea what point you thought you were making.

The point I thought I was making is the same point that I was making. That in fact people who think they totally know what the obvious intent is are absolutely wrong because just as many people are certain of the absolutely opposite intent, and are just as certain that it is absolutely obvious.

The logical conclusion is that whatever the intent is, even if it exists, it isn't obvious.

Also, if the intent of the law is more important than the letter, WTF are judges so harsh on jury nullification, and commonly give instructions that jurors have to follow the letter of the law even when it's retarded and/or a miscarriage of justice?

1) Because jury nullification very rarely if never has has to with the spirit of the laws. Jury nullification is when the jury thinks the law is bad law and refuse to enforce it.

2) I very seriously doubt that judges commonly, or really, ever give instructions to do anything when it is a miscarriage of justice, so I'm going to file that under does not actually happen.

3) As to following the letter of the law, that is very obviously because it is not their job to figure out what the law is. That is the judges job. The jury is the trier of fact, and they are not tasked with figuring out what the law is.

[silva]

Why do people fetishize rules heavy party