Quote from: robiswrong;707740I might suggest that starting "discourse" by using the term Magical Tea Party isn't conducive to conversation.  Generally, you shouldn't start off conversations with terms that are generally used in a pejorative fashion if you're trying to have a productive conversation.

Just sayin'.

At least on TGD Magic Tea Party isn't considered a pejorative, you can totally find posts where people Frank sing the praises of Magic Tea Party. It's just that the positives of Magic Tea Party are so ubiquitously known that people there rarely feel they need to make a case for them.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;707726However "Rulings"/MTP can produce any result you can imagine and that's kind of lame.

You raise valid points, but I'm going to disagree with this.  In theory, yes, ad hoc rulings could produce "any result you could imagine," but in practice, it doesn't.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;707733Personally, i would prefer to hear more from the OP on his evolution on this front.

I got burned out on 3e.  Too much page-flipping.

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;707746I got burned out on 3e.  Too much page-flipping.

What systems have you been using lately?

I can appreciate where you are coming. I am cool playing games with more comprehensive and detailed rules, but can also enjoy approaches based more on rulings over rules. I think both provide different experiences, but each has its benefits. Glad to see you are open to trying an approach you previously disliked.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;707726However "Rulings"/MTP can produce any result you can imagine and that's kind of lame. Because of their adhoc nature and and high variability it's hard for PCs to make meaningful choices, it's like the Monty Hall problem only the goats are Schrodinger's goats and the GM get's to decide if they're alive or dead after you open the box. Now you can say that you personally like playing that sort of game, but you can't claim it encourages player skill because player decisions don't actually matter.

Depends on what you mean by "player skill".  If by "player skill" you mean the ability to work out the math on the various options available to you, and use that to determine the mathematically most sound move?

Yeah, you're right.  Rulings over rules doesn't promote that at all.

Apart from that, outside of extreme degenerate cases, it works.  If you want to talk about extremely random GMs where there's no consistency, then you have to examine the opposite strawman, as well - the idea that without rulings, anything not explicitly laid out in the system is impossible.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;707734That depends on whether or not you think 'up up down down left right left right b a b a select' is a player skill.

iddqd

:banghead: :rant:

Quote from: robiswrong;707749If you want to talk about extremely random GMs where there's no consistency, then you have to examine the opposite strawman, as well - the idea that without rulings, anything not explicitly laid out in the system is impossible.

No I don't because that's not what's on the table. My proposition is actually the middle ground where player have things they can do within the rules and going outside the rules and into GM ruling territory is still possible. The position I'm arguing against is that having PC be able work within the rules at all is badwrong and anyone who thinks that should be a thing is the cancer killing TTRPGs.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;707756The position I'm arguing against is that having PC be able work within the rules at all is badwrong and anyone who thinks that should be a thing is the cancer killing TTRPGs.

Show us these posts that advocate that a PC working within the rules is "badwrong".

Quote from: gamerGoyf;707736Actually I'm unfamiliar with the arguments of the other side that's sort of why I'm here, to deepen my understanding of RPGs by engaging in discourse with people who don't share my views. Unfortunately discourse isn't what's happening here. I presented a reasoned argument, in return I got the tribalistic posturing of the intellectually bankrupt.

Well, now that I understand how you go about deepening your understanding of RPGs, so much has suddenly become clear.

I do find it interesting that disagreeing with you is considered tribalistic posturing, but being intellectually bankrupt, I probably don't have the capacity to understand.

I will say that I don't consider myself in their tribe. I don't like old school D&d...well, I don't actually like any flavor of D&D. I rarely come here and don't even recall when I last posted here (although today's bout of posting has been fun, so perhaps I will post more). With that said, I am left to believe that my inclusion (if I may be so arrogant as to believe you are including me) in this "tribe" can only mean it's made up of anyone who disagrees with your premise.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;707756No I don't because that's not what's on the table. My proposition is actually the middle ground where player have things they can do within the rules and going outside the rules and into GM ruling territory is still possible. The position I'm arguing against is that having PC be able work within the rules at all is badwrong and anyone who thinks that should be a thing is the cancer killing TTRPGs.

Hi!
Per!
Bowl!
Eeeeee!

Quote from: FickleGM;707759I do find it interesting that disagreeing with you is considered tribalistic posturing, but being intellectually bankrupt, I probably don't have the capacity to understand.

So you believe the initial responses to my first post in this thread we're well reasoned counter arguments :?

I don't mind being disagreed with I welcome it in fact, but post's like

Quote from: Exploderwizard;707729This proves that you know Jack and Shit about old school gaming, and Jack left town.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;707734That depends on whether or not you think 'up up down down left right left right b a b a select' is a player skill.

aren't honest attempts at discourse, and they we're what I was responding to. If we want to get technical you didn't make an argument either, you made a statement in incredulity ;3

@goyf.

GMs can give the PCs a likelihood of a task working, even if they've just made the rule for it up.

You're explained before that no RPGset can be fully comprehensive (Godel's Incompleteness Theorem wasn't it?); so we're only arguing about how much fuzziness is acceptable. Designing specific rules inherently gives you diminishing returns per page count, so the 500-page book isn't necessarily that much better than the 200 page book. Its also harder for GMs/players to accurately utilize a larger ruleset - its more likely they'll miss a specific rule that applies. Its also more likely that the rules in a complex system will have a specific problem the designers didn't envisage or a direct contradiction. If that happens then the player is left guessing as to whether the DM is going to house-rule things, leaving them as much in the dark as if the rulebook pile didn't resemble the Encylopaedia Brittanica.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;707762So you believe the initial responses to my first post in this thread we're well reasoned counter arguments :?

I don't mind being disagreed with I welcome it in fact, but post's like


aren't honest attempts at discourse, and they we're what I was responding to. If we want to get technical you didn't make an argument either, you made a statement in incredulity ;3

Seriously? You have a strange way of both inviting discourse and showing that you welcome being disagreed with.

Unfortunately, I'm still stuck on incredulity, it would appear.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;707756No I don't because that's not what's on the table. My proposition is actually the middle ground where player have things they can do within the rules and going outside the rules and into GM ruling territory is still possible.

That's what Rulings vs Rules pretty much is. There's a basic framework of rules, and situations not covered by those rules the GM makes rulings on as they come up. It's not Calvinball, its just a philosophy that doesn't require 300 page gamebooks because a GM is assumed to have a modicum of common sense and imagination.


 

QuoteThe position I'm arguing against is that having PC be able work within the rules at all is badwrong and anyone who thinks that should be a thing is the cancer killing TTRPGs.

And that, otoh, is the strawman position

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;707763You're explained before that no RPGset can be fully comprehensive (Godel's Incompleteness Theorem wasn't it?); so we're only arguing about how much fuzziness is acceptable. Designing specific rules inherently gives you diminishing returns per page count, so the 500-page book isn't necessarily that much better than the 200 page book.

I believe I've said in the past that solution is to have more elegant rules, ones that cover more cases with less page count. I've been reading up on After Sundown lately and it's 224 pages including background fluff, and it's probably more comprehensive than some games that are twice it's length.

Edit

Quote from: TristramEvans;707776That's what Rulings vs Rules pretty much is. There's a basic framework of rules, and situations not covered by those rules the GM makes rulings on as they come up. It's not Calvinball, its just a philosophy that doesn't require 300 page gamebooks because a GM is assumed to have a modicum of common sense and imagination.

If this is true then the only thing we really disagree about is how much "rules framework" a game needs.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;707747What systems have you been using lately?

Savage Worlds.  

I like how gamerGoyf is ignoring my posts in this thread, looks like he wants to nitpick with the other posters.