Minor game stuff from around the web for commentary...

[shadzar]

Apparently Monte Cook thinks we're assholes.

Was there someone who posted here who didn't think we're assholes? Why is it a surprise that someone else does?

I'm and asshole, and im proud of it.

If any of you really believe any of this stuff and think you can rationally defend it instead of just talk smack, you should come out and say it.

Shelley Mezz-whatever can go suck a dick because I don't care about "women gamers", you can go suck a dick because i dont care about "D&D for porn stars", Monte Cook can go suck a dick because i don't care about "D&D for designers"....here let me simplify with a list of people i don't give a damn for D&D to be created for or in the interest of:

Porn stars
women
gay
black
mexicans
designers
hipsters
WotC worshipers

you know there isnt enough room in this posting space for everyone i do NOT want D&D to be made for and cater to so i will give the list of people i DO want D&D to be made for and cater to

groups i DO want D&D to be made for and cater to:
D&D players

if you fit in that list right there, then your opinion matters. if you do not fit in that list for any reason among them that you don't like D&D, then go suck a dick, you don't deserve your own D&D, because you were too lazy since the 70s to make D&D your own. BD&D, D&D, AD&D has all anyone needs to play any type of game with D&D. the only thing missing is a competent DM and competent players. you and yours don't fit that otherwise you wouldn't be using 3.x and newer because you needed to pay someone else to do your imagining for you to create shit like feats, to make level restrictions for classes disappear and everything else done. you fit in the category or morons that have more money than brains. sorry D&D takes brains which you and yours, and Monte Cook lack.

D&D is and will always be what YOU make of it. you want to talk about "crunchy" games, then why the fuck are you bashing your own favored game. you can't get more crunchy than 3.x with its clusterfuck of stupid. but being you "with porn stars", then a clusterfuck is all you understand anyway. if you CAN play with less rules, then why arent you using Holmes 20 page Basic D&D? why aren't you using Mentzer Red Box? why do you need all the "crunch" of 3.x?

practice what you preach kid. (and get the fuck off my lawn! )

[Schleiermacher]

What the hell? Shadzar you unutterable troglodyte. Fuck the hell off to whatever 1950s paranoiac's nightmares you crawled out of and don't come back.

[darkmaster]

*clicks on a shadzar post*
*immediately regrets doing so*

Alright I think we've established that Zak is a dumb so now we can talk about why Sadzar is a dumb. I'm not actually going to justify the misogyny and racism with a response except to say that there is nothing stopping any member of those demographics from also being part of the demographic "D&D player" I really want to believe that shad was trying to say this in his post but his crippling verbal dysentery caused the thoughts to explode onto the page half formed.

As for his assertion that "D&D is whatever you make it"... I'll come right out and admit that I am not actually an expert on the various incarnations of D&D but my gut feeling is saying "no". Now if someone who is not shadzar or suffering from a similarly advanced form of dementia wants to refute that then I will gladly concede the point but until then I will stand by my gut feeling that that is not now, nor has it ever been true.

I could perhaps see the argument that there are versions of D&D that are less crunch, because there are literally two lines of D&D specifically for that reason, but beyond that... no.

[Cyberzombie]

Now he describes the experience as feeling that the people asking the questions were assholes and he didn't want to do things for them anymore, and he probably did experience it that way. But the reality is that what set him off was a perfectly normal game design question. Someone asked "What happens if I..." instead of "What's going on in..." A game design question instead of a setting design question. And he felt angry and defeated. Because Monte Cook doesn't want to do game design anymore. At all.

I think you're reading way too much into this. Just because your college professor gets angry at a dumb question doesn't mean that he wants to give up teaching and go into something else.

Sometimes questions are just stupid. And I understand where Monte is coming from. No matter how much effort you put into writing the rules, there's always going to be people who are going to twist your wording, find crazy edge cases and otherwise find some ridiculous way to exploit or break your game. Now if that were a computer game, it might be a serious issue, but when you're talking about a game that's run by a human being and it's not a serious issue at all.

The only real rules flaw I'd say is happening is if we're not actively encouraging DMs to stop the BS. If there's something that's breaking the game or just plain dumb, don't allow it. And yeah, if you've got one of the players who just lives to find crazy loopholes and then pretends you're some spineless computer compiler that must blindly follow and allow it, then yeah, that guy is an asshole. It's fine to do thought experiments on CharOp boards, but if you bring that BS to a game? Yeah, you're an asshole.

There's no way that RPG designers on a typical RPG budget are going to make all their rules so perfect that they're exploitable computer code. Just not going to happen. They're there to get rid of the obvious problems, not to worry about crazy edge cases and rules interactions. Personally, I'd be happy with a designer that can handle the basics. Get the fighter versus wizard balance right, that'll impress me. I don't need every little loophole covered. Most people can spot a bunch of overly technical legalese BS.

[deaddmwalking]

I'm going to run a quick errand - but if someone else has the time, take a math hammer to those rules. The bonus doesn't even matter in the situation he specifies. He says 'non-hostile' (I'm pretty sure). The range of situations where it would matter seem unlikely to matter...

[virgil]

Hasn't it already been established that the rule essentially means that only if you have a good Dexterity, and intend to be a face-type, then you get a musical instrument (depending on bonus/penalty severity)? The standards of what makes a musical instrument are so lax (a triangle solo, really?), could you not just perform a short dance?

[Laertes]

Hasn't it already been established that the rule essentially means that only if you have a good Dexterity, and intend to be a face-type, then you get a musical instrument (depending on bonus/penalty severity)? The standards of what makes a musical instrument are so lax (a triangle solo, really?), could you not just perform a short dance?

Yeah, it just becomes a universal thing since there's no reason not to take it. Since that's the optimal thing to do I assume that every NPC will do it too. All negotiations are therefore performed in song, and every argument is done Bollywood-style, and the DCs for all negotiation checks just go up slightly globally to compensate.

[Username17]

Now he describes the experience as feeling that the people asking the questions were assholes and he didn't want to do things for them anymore, and he probably did experience it that way. But the reality is that what set him off was a perfectly normal game design question. Someone asked "What happens if I..." instead of "What's going on in..." A game design question instead of a setting design question. And he felt angry and defeated. Because Monte Cook doesn't want to do game design anymore. At all.

I think you're reading way too much into this. Just because your college professor gets angry at a dumb question doesn't mean that he wants to give up teaching and go into something else.

Sometimes questions are just stupid.

But Monte didn't say the question was stupid. It wasn't that the question had an obvious answer or that the possible different answers were trivial or essentially similar. Any or all of those things might have been true, but that's not what Monte was complaining about.

Monte's complaint was that he was being asked about the effects of collections of content that no one at his table was ever going to use. That's it. That's the whole complaint. The question itself might have been brilliant or retarded and we'll never know, but the thing that actually set him off was that the people were asking him game design questions about content he didn't care about.

And of course, his subjective description of that event is way into projection and crazy town, where he concludes from the fact that he felt bad when asked a game design question about content he didn't care about that the person who asked the question was an asshole. That is his actual evidence that the other person is a bad person: that they asked a question about game content that he personally had no intention of using in his home game. It's the kind of thing that gives public relations specialists a stomach cramp.

Of course, Monte has very obviously not given any fucks about game design since about 2005. Arcana Unearthed was obviously a hastily released collection of notes he had for D&D 3.5 set to some setting notes he happened to have on hand. If WotC hadn't fired their 3e design team and let Andy Fucking Collins hack together 3.5, a lot of those ideas would have probably made their way into 3.5 in a somewhat more polished form. But Monte also continued to work on that setting and those mechanics for two more years - releasing Arcana Evolved, which had some genuine mechanical fixes in addition to some jank ass change for change's sake. After that? Well, Monte Cook Presents: Year's Best d20 is certainly Exhibit A that you no longer give a shit. Monte Cook Presents: Iron Heroes by Mike Mearls is Exhibit B. And of course, the clincher is that two years later there was Monte Cook's World of Darkness.

-Username17

[Prak]

Hasn't it already been established that the rule essentially means that only if you have a good Dexterity, and intend to be a face-type, then you get a musical instrument (depending on bonus/penalty severity)? The standards of what makes a musical instrument are so lax (a triangle solo, really?), could you not just perform a short dance?

Yeah, it just becomes a universal thing since there's no reason not to take it. Since that's the optimal thing to do I assume that every NPC will do it too. All negotiations are therefore performed in song, and every argument is done Bollywood-style, and the DCs for all negotiation checks just go up slightly globally to compensate.

Yeah, people have shit fits about charop, but the thing is that people fucking charop in real life. If you're 5'4", you're not going to go out for the basketball team just because it could "add to your character" and if you are genetically over the BMI, with a skeletal weight better suited to someone two feet taller than you, you're not going to try to become a model, and if you're a geology major, you're not going to just decide to go get a job driving the garbage truck. And if your body fits into the standard ideal of beauty and you're at all sociable and don't have archaic morals, you're probably going to move to Hollywood and do some variety of sex work. Or I would, anyway.

People demonstrably optimize, and to do otherwise is actually unrealistic, so the realistic character in a game with Zak's small instrument is going to have a small instrument if they ever expect to do any amount of social interaction. And if they fail their roll, then they just have their buddy, who also has an instrument, give it a shot. So every market in the setting is filled with discordant performances because people are trying to get the price for everything, and every adventuring party is also a band of wandering minstrels who respond to every job offer with a performance to try to get better pay.

[deaddmwalking]

Musical Instrument (small):
This could be any old musical instrument you can carry: a violin, bagpipes, a triangle, whatever. Playing a musical instrument requires a dexterity check. Successfully playing the instrument gives you a bonus to reaction/charisma rolls with nonhostile beings able to appreciate music. Failure gives you a minus.

To start with, this implies that there may be a penalty to Charisma checks if you fail your Dexterity Check. This does not appear to be based on the Perform Skill, but if the DC were in line with typical performances, it would absolutely be possible to ensure you only receive a bonus.

From the descriptions, it sounds something like a DC 10 Dexterity Check; something that even a Dextrous character could fail, so it may give you a penalty.

The text specifically says that it is only applicable to 'non-hostile' beings. Unfriendly is the 'worst' category that this could apply to.

To get them to 'indifferent' is a 15, friendly 25, and helpful 40.

Assuming the bonus is 'small' (like maybe a +1) it by itself isn't going to make the difference between one category and another.

A 2nd level character with maximum ranks (5), skill focus (+3), a good Charisma (+4) , and at least one synergy bonus (+2) is already at a +13. If synergy bonuses stack, it could be another +4. At this point, even if any one of your friends is going to nod and 'aid another', you're going to be at +15.

So you're going to get an Unfriendly being to Indifferent without this bonus.

At this point, you can also look at items that provide a skill bonus. At bonus squared x 100 gp, a +5 item is 2500 gp; a +10 one use item is 250 gp.

So while he may be decrying 'power gamers' or 'munchkins' acting out of character for a mechanical bonus, his specific example is full pants-on-head retarded.

[virgil]

I'm reasonably certain that when he tells you to make an ability check, it's closer to 2E's format; which means you need to roll equal to or lower than your Dexterity to succeed.

[deaddmwalking]

Probably.

And I don't think he uses 3.x Diplomacy either. While I can't fault him for that, we're talking about 'hand-waving' a bonus on top of 'hand-waving' Diplomacy.

It's a bull-shit bonus because there is no core functionality for the bonus to apply to. It's basically 'GM will consider good roleplaying when deciding how the other party responds'.

[Cyberzombie]

Monte's complaint was that he was being asked about the effects of collections of content that no one at his table was ever going to use.

Not quite. What he said was: "Someone was asking a bullshitty question about some crazy loophole that no one I'd ever let in a game would consider"

The important point he's making isn't that only his table matters, but rather that DMs (and groups as a whole) shouldn't tolerate this kind of rules-exploitative behavior. His later comment about not designing rules for assholes means that the proper solution to a disruptive player at the table is to kick him out. An asshole PC is like an asshole DM, no rules are going to fix them. It shouldn't be on the designer to somehow turn the guy into a productive group member. And there's a lot of validity to that point of view.

As for Monte's history of bad designs, let me say, I don't think he's a particularly good game designer. I happen to agree with his PoV on this topic, but I'm not an MC fan by any means. I have been skeptical of his work since his rewrite of the 3.0 ranger (http://webpages.charter.net/chromwolf/d ... angers.pdf). When he began the article talking about how favored enemy was problematic, and then immediately afterwards announced he decided not to change it at all, I realized that he wasn't all that good of a game designer. I also always hated his stance on "rules mastery" being an excuse for designers to write crappy trap options.

So yeah, he's another designer that writes bad rules, but that's pretty much the norm. But everyone can come up with a good idea from time to time.

[schpeelah]

The important point he's making isn't that only his table matters, but rather that DMs (and groups as a whole) shouldn't tolerate this kind of rules-exploitative behavior.

What "this kind of rules-exploitative behavior"? He didn't say what the question was, and he posted that in the comments of a blog post about how people who react to a rule that gives bonuses to dexterous characters with instruments by giving their dexterous characters instruments are terrible players - hardly disruptive behavior by any means.

[PhoneLobster]

every adventuring party is also a band of wandering minstrels who respond to every job offer with a performance to try to get better pay.

"OK guys, this is a serious social encounter with the King, we NEED to convince him to help fight the demon spies, no messing around we need every chance we can get. So... everyone still has their kazoos right?..."


...Also, I feel bad for bad for everyone who had previously wished to see a hilarious interaction between Zak S's gibbering insane nonsense and Shadzar's gibbering insane nonsense.

No one could have predicted Shadzar's gibbering insane nonsense would inexplicably set to remarkably improbable levels of racism, sexism and all round slime bagishness.

I'm pretty sure people more expected, or at least hoped for, some innocent thing where Zak S declared that the least competent rules lite mechanics ever envisaged were the one true role playing and way of the future "because fuck you rules" and then Shadzar would declare that the worst ever imaginary versions of 2E/1E D&D were the one true role playing and way of the future-past "because fuck you rules" and then just gibber at each other for a few pages.

Shadzar. You let us down man. I am Disappoint on many levels. I am disappoint.

[ishy]

The question was probably something like: "If my cleric casts self-buffs, he outfights the fighter, shouldn't the fighter get some love?".
To which someone answered, "If any cleric of Ares tries to cast self-buffs I will personally come to your house and kick them out of your game."

[PhoneLobster]

What "this kind of rules-exploitative behavior"? He didn't say what the question was...

Yeah. If it was anything like the example being discussed then it was a pile of crap.

I've seen 3.5 DM's who essentially respond to "I move with my move action and then I move with my standard action, yes for my turn I perform a simple Double Move action walking in a straight line for lack of anything better to do this round" as some sort of evil rules lawyer sorcery.

So without at least SOME example of what the hell is "rules-exploitative behaviour" I generally don't take the criticism as having any real meaning at all. Because while for SOME people that means bullshit needlessly elaborate versions of infinite wish loops based on five spells, three items, 18th level characters and several broken prestige classes, for others it means "understanding and using the absolute basic rules for making your character walk". You don't have to give an EXACT example to make me take a claim of rules exploitative behaviour seriously, but you have to provide me with at least SOME idea of which ballpark you fall in on what you think it even is.

[Zak S]

so the realistic character in a game with Zak's small instrument is going to have a small instrument if they ever expect to do any amount of social interaction. And if they fail their roll, then they just have their buddy, who also has an instrument, give it a shot. .

Again with the bizarre fantasies. Does it bother you guys when you say things will happen and they don't?

[Cyberzombie]

What "this kind of rules-exploitative behavior"? He didn't say what the question was, and he posted that in the comments of a blog post about how people who react to a rule that gives bonuses to dexterous characters with instruments by giving their dexterous characters instruments are terrible players - hardly disruptive behavior by any means.

True, he didn't, but it's not particularly relevant. The topic isn't commenting on Monte's judgment as to individual cases but rather the broad design concept: It's generally a waste of time to try to make rules that are asshole-proof.

[GnomeWorks]

Does it bother you guys when you say things will happen and they don't?

If the reason that they don't is "just because," then... yeah, and understandably so.

Your rule - the idea that playing a musical instrument gives you some chance, based on your stats, of giving you a bonus to $roll in social encounters - kind of does imply that any sort of social interaction is going to wind up with somebody playing a song of some sort.

I mean... think about this. A calculator is useful for making mathematical calculations, because it does so quicker than people and isn't wrong (unless you put in the wrong numbers). So you could stat up a calculator much like your musical instrument: make an Int check, get a small bonus in math-related situations.

So if you are in a profession where you make a lot of math-related checks, like accounting, then you're going to start using a calculator. Because every time you use it, it has a chance of making the results of your "accounting check" better. It also means that people with higher Intelligence - and thus, less chance of failing at using a calculator - will become better accountants than those not using calculators because of the risk involved, which means that you eventually weed out accountants with less than a 10 Int.

This explains why every accountant ever uses calculators, and also leads to a situation where most accountants have a sufficient Int score to reliably take advantage of the calculator bonus.

Do you see why your rule leads to the notion that every social person uses an instrument? It doesn't matter if calculators or instruments or whatever are boring; what matters is that they lead to greater effectiveness, to the point where they become ubiquitous.

[Prak]

so the realistic character in a game with Zak's small instrument is going to have a small instrument if they ever expect to do any amount of social interaction. And if they fail their roll, then they just have their buddy, who also has an instrument, give it a shot. .

Again with the bizarre fantasies. Does it bother you guys when you say things will happen and they don't?

So you're saying characters in your games do not act in ways that realistic characters would? Characters in your games will regularly take their mountains of wealth, give it to someone else, and go live as beggars because it "adds to their character?" Court seneschals are rolling out of bed and going into the court in just their heart-printed boxers and the grime of last night because being properly groomed and dressed is power gaming?

I mean, sure, there are stupid people, but usually people will set themselves up for success through whatever means possible.

Then again, you seem to write for insufferable hipsters, who will actually avoid things just because "everyone is doing it," and to be fair, it can be difficult to tell the difference between a hipster and a hobo, so I can see where the confusion might lie in a game about murderhobos.

edit: I would totally support a game that was actually literally about murderhipsterhobos. It would need a beard stat.

[PhoneLobster]

Again with the bizarre fantasies.

Expecting players to do a bad thing you just strongly motivated them to do?

A thing you yourself admit is strongly motivated to the point as to potentially create entire parties wielding kazoos for mechanical social benefits.

A thing which is ONLY balanced by people actually doing that and you only then making it "boring" and "time costly" and "making jokes about them" when everyone, hell strike that, in your actual original post ANYONE, actually follows that motivation.

Apparently now counts as a "Bizarre Fantasy". That "Never Happens".

I tell you what. You wrote a rule you don't want anyone to use. You describe a situation where the whole group won't use it because you will literally deliberately bog down the game with boring jokes making fun of any player who uses it.

Apparently bogging down the game with making fun of a player combined with giving them real social bonuses for kazoo playing magically results in the "perfect" balance of never having groups of players do that, but somehow regularly having individual players tolerate you shitting with them for daring to use a rule you wrote for them to use.

You are a shitty game designer, but with this whole bizarre "bog down and make fun of them" strategy you also demonstrate you are a surprisingly shitty GM.

[fbmf]

here let me simplify with a list of people i don't give a damn for D&D to be created for or in the interest of:

Porn stars
women
gay
black
mexicans
designers
hipsters
WotC worshipers

[The Great Fence Builder Speaks]
Emphasis mine. You've been warned against making inflammatory racist remarks. Once again, you've overstepped even the "anything goes" TGDMB posting norms.

Get off my lawn.
[/The Great Fence Builder Speaks]

[Kaelik]

you also demonstrate you are a surprisingly shitty GM.

Did it really surprise you? Seemed pretty predictable to me.

[Koumei]

Hedges and Hipsters
We had character sheets, back before they sold out and everyone had one

Your stats are beard and glasses