Quote from: gamerGoyf;689424So you feel the fact many people on this site are convinced that there is a vast conspiracy among other RPG fans to ruin the game for them personally is completely unproblematic.

There doesn't need to be a conspiracy, just a collection of similar agendas.

You'd be shocked nay stunned to find out just how little many of the posters on this board actually care about D&D. Thirty year old squabbles about alignment, the divergent power levels between magic users and fighters as time goes on, EPIC edition wars and what Gary would have recommended for breakfast mean absolutely nothing to such people, because such people are interested in gaming and having fun first and foremost.

What does annoy these people are jackasses whose main interest in the hobby appears to be inflicting their own halfassed political agendas on how they have fun, despite such fun being inoffensive and entirely harmless to anyone that isn't a strident first year arts student out to do the world a favour.

IKR, gamers not interested in deeundee!?!1 Unpossible!

Quote from: The Traveller;689431What does annoy these people are jackasses whose main interest in the hobby appears to be inflicting their own halfassed political agendas on how they have fun, despite such fun being inoffensive and entirely harmless to anyone that isn't a strident first year arts student out to do the world a favour.

Pundit, Benoist, and Sacrosant:  You'll have to leave now.  Turn on the "Swine Welcome" sign before you go.

Damn, Traveller, have you read these boards?  Half the threads turn into, "Arrgh, I'm going to die alone as a true roleplayer while the munchkin WoW players set the world on fire!!!"

But, more constructively...

Tristram:  I think a large part of the "Magical Tea Party" controversy comes from a distinction between "roleplaying," "making stuff up," and "Bugs Bunny Carpet Pulling Absurdism."

I'm a crunchy kind of guy.  The first time I played D&D, my choices were Fighter, Thief, Cleric, Mage, Dwarf, Elf, or Hobbit.  But, I settled into 3.5, which I like, and I've mostly been the DM for my groups.  So, I really can't be accused of being unfamiliar with OLD SCHOOL or afraid of DM rulings, since I'm the DM.

Now, if one of my players misses a series of attacks against a Quickling, and proceeds to say (in character), "Curse your blurry hide and curse all the fey!" then he is, in fact, roleplaying.  If his character maintains a vendetta against the fey after the fight, his is continuing to roleplay.  I support these things.

If one of my players says, "I'm going to swing off a (previously unmentioned) chandelier and kick the bad guy into a (previously unmentioned) cage full of bears, causing the door to slam shut behind him and wake up the bears," then he is making stuff up.  If we're playing Exalted, this is a perfectly legal move with rules that back it up.  This is something I get little uncomfortable with, and is the sort of thing that usually jumps to mind when "Magic Tea Party" gets thrown around.  The thing that bothers me is not that the rules are being violated, but that the internal consistency of the game world and the feel of the game are constantly being called into question.

If one of my players sees a troll, and throws a torch on the rug expecting the rug to explode, or for the troll to stand there and burn to death, then we've gone into absurdism.  If we're playing Toon, this is again a legal move, but so is distracting the troll by grabbing it's hand and asking how long since it's had a manicure.  "Rule of Cool" type games tend to veer into this category, and I don't like them because I like to have an internally consistent world.

Now, an internally consistent world NECESSARILY has rules.  In fantasy gaming, I lean towards the crunchier systems because I don't want to argue about the way things like magic and dragons interact with the world.  I also don't want to argue about the gross wheat output of an 11th century farm using the two field method, but also using Manticore shit as fertilizer.  I want a relatively solid framework that handles those interactions and to save my creative juices for inter-kingdom rivalries, archeological hints of ancient evils, and other fun, "roleplay" elements.

I think more "rules light" systems tend to lend themselves to modern/futuristic games because it is easier to understand how the world is supposed to work.  People don't try Bugs Bunny carpet pulling BS because we know it doesn't work.

It's Saturday night. Go out for a beer or something.

Quote from: One Horse Town;689442It's Saturday night. Go out for a beer or something.

I wish I wasn't at work.  Beer for my lunch/dinner break gets me in more trouble than pestering the internet.

Quote from: Arturick;689439Tristram:  I think a large part of the "Magical Tea Party" controversy comes from a distinction between "roleplaying," "making stuff up," and "Bugs Bunny Carpet Pulling Absurdism."

MTP refers exclusively to option 2 in your list, and you literally can not have a session of a role playing game without the GM making things up. It is imposible.

First of all, Mistwell was ranting, so it's not like he was laying out the most logical responses to a troll, he was trying to illustrate the point that based on conversations he was seeing on Enworld, players were mainly "running the numbers".

I'll just tell you as a GM what I would do if Mistwell tossed the torch.  I'm the kind of GM that thinks a little bit about my encounters, so when there's a creature that players are going to be looking to defeat with fire, like a mummy or a troll, I try to determine the flammability of things.  It's possible a dry, dusty rug might go up (I had one in my garage go up pretty good from a halogen lamp that went over), but unlikely that a damp one would.  So I'd probably give the rug some form of saving throw (modified by just being a torch dropped).

Same thing with the Troll's response, I'd determine based on the environment. Is that the Troll's lair or is he roaming.  A wandering monster would be far less likely to stand in the face of a foe that has demonstrated its weakness, fire.  Then again, a Troll's not the world's most intelligent monster, so the appearance of a very small fire might induce a "Hulk Smash" moment where the Troll wants to get rid of the small fire before it becomes a big one.  Saving Throws, morale checks, has the Troll eaten or not, all those factors come into play, a combination of a die roll and adjudication of the GM.

If that's Magical Tea Party, then pass the watercress sandwiches, because I don't see any other way to GM that makes sense to me.

Dan, you don't have to worry, now I'm going out.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;689448you literally can not have a session of a role playing game without the GM making things up. It is imposible.

Absolutely agreed.  I, as a DM, make stuff up all the time.  I am less enthusiastic about players making stuff up or expecting my world to react in ways that I find unrealistic.

CRKrueger:  I would run with the description of trolls presented in the Monster Manual:  "Trolls have no fear of death: They launch themselves into combat without hesitation, flailing wildly at the closest opponent. Even when confronted with fire, they try to get around the flames and attack."

Quote from: arturickNow, if one of my players misses a series of attacks against a Quickling, and proceeds to say (in character), "Curse your blurry hide and curse all the fey!" then he is, in fact, roleplaying. If his character maintains a vendetta against the fey after the fight, his is continuing to roleplay. I support these things.

If one of my players says, "I'm going to swing off a (previously unmentioned) chandelier and kick the bad guy into a (previously unmentioned) cage full of bears, causing the door to slam shut behind him and wake up the bears," then he is making stuff up. If we're playing Exalted, this is a perfectly legal move with rules that back it up. This is something I get little uncomfortable with, and is the sort of thing that usually jumps to mind when "Magic Tea Party" gets thrown around. The thing that bothers me is not that the rules are being violated, but that the internal consistency of the game world and the feel of the game are constantly being called into question.

Bravo, a slightly more intelligent an cleverly constructed exclusion of the middle.  We've moved up to fourth grade now.  I guess it is a step up.

However, you are still living in Northern Canada, and talking about Cuba, and pretending that there is nothing in between.  

Why don't I find you a 9 year old to help you understand?  because for most of us, this was pretty elementary a decade or so ago.  Really.  Did you read anything here before you started spewing?  There is SO much in between your examples you miss...in most cases, a player asks the GM what is around, no one makes up chandeliers unless they play in an idiot's game.   And most of it makes a better game, without messing with the game.  

and try focusing on that idea of better game.

The examples I gave with the troll were not intended to garner a response from a DM of "OK, that works!".

I expect they will work like the DM guidelines suggest they should work.  The DM will call for a roll, possibly modified by an ability modifier, and/or a circumstance bonus or penalty, and/or a modifier based on my character background and such.  There will be a target DC the DM sets, either a fixed one, or a variable one rolled by the DM and modified appropriate based on the troll's abilities and background and circumstances.  

My point is not that rules shouldn't be used.  My point is that the character's actions shouldn't be dictated by the artificial constraints of the character sheet or power cards.  Those things can be helpful, particularly as a reminder of some things which benefit from a calculation done before-hand that saves time during the game.  But the point of the character sheet is not to provide a comprehensive list of things your PC can do - that would be impossible.  

I'm finding, however, that too many people have become dependent on their character sheets and/or power cards to be told what their character does, rather than role playing and thinking about what their character does.  In any given situation there are usually a dozen things your character could do, only a handful of which are covered directly by things on your character sheet.  

The rest of those options might be suggested by some entries on that sheet (like "I am strong, so I could probably lift that large braizer and dump it on that Orc's head"), but for the most part simply engaging the DM and players and thinking through the situation and terrain and allies and enemies present and character background and "general" strengths and weaknesses is plenty enough to inform your decisions at the table on what to do.  

In other words, the character sheet can be handy, but it's not supposed to be your list of options within the rules.  The rules cover way more situations than the specific options on your character sheet, and it's often best to simply state what you think your character would do given the circumstances, rather than become dependent on the character sheet to tell you what your choices are.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;689416Don't be coy you made an absurd statement, I merely extended it to it's logical conclusion. I'm sure you don't actually believe that every rule ever is harmful to roleplaying.

No, just as I'm sure that I never said that, and that the logical conclusion of me saying
, well, whatever comment you're specifically responding to, isn't 'rules are all bad and everyone should play freeform'. There's a huge middle ground between the one and the other, which is what people are referring to as being excluded.

Rules resolution mechanics are no substitution for paying attention to the details of pretend-land. Those will be provided at the table, and it behooves players to be engaged listeners and ask pertinent questions. In RPGs there is more than one context of which to be aware.

Benoist is right when he says the rules is not the game. A facet is not the whole. Further, all RPG contexts involved cannot be covered by the rules without ceasing to be an RPG.

This is essential to understand.

Quote from: Mistwell;689456I'm finding, however, that too many people have become dependent on their character sheets and/or power cards to be told what their character does, rather than role playing and thinking about what their character does. In any given situation there are usually a dozen things your character could do, only a handful of which are covered directly by things on your character sheet.

The problem is that your complaints at the most generous interpenetration merely about 4e. Alternatively you are merely whining about players you don't like and those players are virtually everyone. People default to actions that are a known factor, especially if those actions have payed-off in the past. Double especially if the alternative is a completely unknown factor.

Folding back to our original topic this is where muder-hobos come in. What exactly do you expect is going to happen when D&D has always had clear rules and rewards for combat and historically the rules have not handled non-combat resolutions badly if at all (unless you're playing glorious 3.0)

Quote from: gamerGoyf;689501Folding back to our original topic this is where muder-hobos come in. What exactly do you expect is going to happen when D&D has always had clear rules and rewards for combat and historically the rules have not handled non-combat resolutions badly if at all (unless you're playing glorious 3.0)

Original D&D had rules for combat. The rewards usually end up being that you get to roll up new characters fairly often. Please get educated before spouting off about what D&D "always" had.

D&D rewards killing stuff (XP) and taking their stuff (possibly XP, but definitely money that can be used to buy goods and services).  

Choosing not to kill things and avoid taking their stuff is not rewarded.  Even if you accomplish 'the mission' the system is not designed to reward you.

If you 'rescue the princess' without killing anything or taking it's stuff, your only reward is potentially a friendly contact.  

The system rewards murder-hoboism.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;689502Original D&D had rules for combat. The rewards usually end up being that you get to roll up new characters fairly often. Please get educated before spouting off about what D&D "always" had.

So the wargamers who comprised the playerbase of "original D&D" just completely abandoned doing combats in favor of tea and crumpets in their fantasy wargame hack. That's some sick revisionism bro.