Kudos/Commentary: Q&A Thread, Luke Crane

Spike · July 31, 2007, 12:23:02 PM

Quote from: Abyssal MawThis is also why fiat isn't necessarily a bad thing. It is an abusable thing, though, which is what people are really watching out for. It's also abusable to have more rules than you really need. So if you need rules to eat, and you have to roll to see whether the fork makes it to your mouth, that also sucks.

I totally Fiat that at my table.

I am EVIL! Bwhaahahahahahahahaha

Pierce Inverarity · July 31, 2007, 12:51:38 PM

Umm, Luke, AM... if you don't answer the question I will henceforth call you evil twins at my leisure.

QuoteLuke and AM, do you both agree on the following two points?--

1) Someone's GOT to wear the Viking Hat.

2) Given this, it might as well be the designer (BW, 3.x, doesn't matter; Mearls = Luke).

TonyLB · July 31, 2007, 12:53:15 PM

Quote from: Pierce InverarityUmm, Luke, AM... if you don't answer the question I will henceforth call you evil twins at my leisure.

For Luke's part, why don't you just post it in ... well ... the Q&A thread?

Pierce Inverarity · July 31, 2007, 12:57:59 PM

Because that would soften the impact of AM and Luke agreeing on a fundamental issue in one and the same thread.

Abyssal Maw · July 31, 2007, 01:07:20 PM

I didn't understand the significance of the viking hat!

:viking: :valkyrie:

I probably agree with Luke on plenty of things. Even gaming related things.

Edit: But you CAN call me an evil twin of Luke at your leisure. I can take it!

Pierce Inverarity · July 31, 2007, 01:14:07 PM

Quote from: Abyssal MawBut you CAN call me an evil twin of Luke at your leisure. I can take it!

I was fearing that!

luke · July 31, 2007, 02:43:44 PM

Quote from: Abyssal MawI do believe more rules=less fiat.

This may be true, but it seems like a poor fix. If having clear cut rules lessens the chance that one tired, overworked player is going to have to make something up on the fly, why not just get rid of "fiat" altogether and simply say that the players must obey the rules? It's a much more simple and elegant solution from a game design standpoint.

-L

Alnag · July 31, 2007, 02:47:09 PM

Quote from: lukeIt's a much more simple and elegant solution from a game design standpoint.

Design standpoint might be. What about consumer standpoint? Because from design standpoint to get rid of the players altogether might be (with just a bit of exageration) also very simple and elegant solution. Who the hell are players anyway to interpret the rules. ;-)

luke · July 31, 2007, 02:47:29 PM

Sorry Pierce, I dont understand the Viking Hat. I know it's a joke from rpg.net about GMs, but that's it.

Abyssal Maw · July 31, 2007, 02:48:36 PM

Quote from: lukeThis may be true, but it seems like a poor fix. If having clear cut rules lessens the chance that one tired, overworked player is going to have to make something up on the fly, why not just get rid of "fiat" altogether and simply say that the players must obey the rules? It's a much more simple and elegant solution from a game design standpoint.

-L

When discussing game design, players always must be assumed to be obeying the rules. If players are doing things outside of the rules, you can't blame the system. If players are going to not obey the rules, then just simply putting in a rule that says "players must obey the rules" doesn't fix anything either. Because they can just ignore that.

Simple! Elegant! ... and completely Useless!

James J Skach · July 31, 2007, 02:50:45 PM

Quote from: lukeThis may be true, but it seems like a poor fix. If having clear cut rules lessens the chance that one tired, overworked player is going to have to make something up on the fly, why not just get rid of "fiat" altogether and simply say that the players must obey the rules? It's a much more simple and elegant solution from a game design standpoint.

-L

Which, tired, overworked player? Hell, I'm not even playing and I'm tired and overworked

Seriously, though - how does what you said differ from what AM is saying (and with which I'm agreeing). It's seems a bit circular, so maybe I'm misreading something.

Perhaps you're saiyng that the best of all worlds would be rules that cover everything so fiat isn't an issue - the players (all of them) just have to obey rules...is that it? If so, I know I won't, and I doubt AM will, argue that in particular.

But in the absence of the perfect world, I don't see the problem with Fiat to fill the cracks with spackle. Can you help me understand what you would use in place of Fiat to fill those gaps in the rules? I think I know, but I want to clean the decks and start fresh...

Spike · July 31, 2007, 02:57:49 PM

Um...

You guys realize that the 'poor, tired overworked player' he was referring to was the Gamemaster in a sterling example of communication?

Just checking

James J Skach · July 31, 2007, 02:59:58 PM

Quote from: SpikeUm...

You guys realize that the 'poor, tired overworked player' he was referring to was the Gamemaster in a sterling example of communication?

Just checking

Oh, Spike...you missed the

in that post meant to show it as a facetious remark?

Here's a few more just to make sure...

Pierce Inverarity · July 31, 2007, 04:02:56 PM

Quote from: lukeSorry Pierce, I dont understand the Viking Hat. I know it's a joke from rpg.net about GMs, but that's it.

There isn't much to it. It's just shorthand for "GM is always right, welcome to my world, mortals" yadda yadda. Funless Hackmaster.

What I'm trying to get at is simply that there's been a Viking Hat switcheroo from GM to designer, whether in BW or 3.x. These games are like boardgames in the sense that you can do little or nothing outside what the rules allow.

And that's fine, for some. And I don't feel disempowered as a former Viking Hat wearer. Au contraire, I feel put off as a general Viking Hat hater. And I've been GMing for most of my gaming life.

AD&D 1E was a baroque mess which everyone drifted/houseruled the shit out of, exactly as they pleased. Where "they" is the whole group, and "houserule" is just the codification of everyone's input by the GM, and which is always subject to further revision (after all, it's just a houserule).

That at least was how it did pan out sometimes, because social dynamics exist regardless of whether they're addressed in a rulesbook. We're social beings before we learn what a d20 is, and while dictatorial GMs exist, they just don't last very long (except on the infraweb). And the flexibility and tacitness of that "houseruling" process, over many years, is being actively resisted by more recent design approaches.

luke · July 31, 2007, 04:29:12 PM

Thanks for clearing that up.

I don't agree that making a functional game design that works as written in the books without the players having to make shit up in order for it to run is the same as "GM is always right, welcome to my world, mortals."

While I will often cite board, card and wargames as models of functional design in which the players follow the rules and still manage to enjoy the game, I do not think summarily dismissing functionally designed RPG rules as boardgames is accurate in any sense.