Quote from: Benoist;455406In the other, you a have a sample of resistances to specific sources, and from there you have to interpret these values and question your interpretation of them to come up with different applications in the game. It asks of you to master the rules, instead of having the rules do the thinking for you.

I think this is the crux of our disagreement: You think mastering the rules means to make up a bunch of house rules. I don't.

QuoteI don't consider a rules system to be some sort of program to run applications. It's a set of tools that allow me to run the game.

I couldn't agree more. Which is why I prefer my toolboxes to have screwdrivers in them, instead of being forced to say, "Okay. I've got a screw here but no screwdriver. So what I can do is take this awl and use it to whittle down the handle of the hammer to form a wooden screwdriver."

I'd rather have a complete set of tools and spend my time focused on how I can use those tools to run the game.

(I'm also not adverse to system tinkering. But I don't see any particular virtue in being forced to tinker with the system because the system wasn't designed properly in the first place.)

QuoteThe only way for us to solve this disagreement would be for me to accept that the rules should be some kind of seemless piece of programming that works like an app on your brain

Having a complete toolbox doesn't mean that the tools build the furniture for you.

Slipping from "boy, I wish this toolbox had a screwdriver in it" to "boy, I wish this toolbox had a robotic overlord who would use the screwdriver for me" requires a very slippery slope indeed.

Quote from: jibbajibba;455423Ben that doesn't really make sense as an arguement mate.

It actually does to me, because I'm actually describing the reality of what brings me pleasure with the games I'm playing right now. Now, maybe I'm not explaining it in a way that particularly resonates with the enjoyment you get from your gaming, but that's a reality nonetheless.

Quote from: jibbajibba;455423Why not extrapolate this still further? Perhaps encoding the character generation rules in a cypher of some kind? Maybe writing the racial rules in the appropriate tongue? Elvish Rules in Sindarian anyone?

Who's to say some people might not enjoy this kind of thing? I probably wouldn't, but here's the thing: it's not an either/or, "completely obscure v. totally straightforward" kind of choice here. It's a question of how, as a GM, you relate to the rules set you're using, and what makes you comfortable using it. Just like the reasons why you'd love your couch would vary from individual to individual, and usually expressed in terms of shades and variety of combinations of choices and preferences, the reasons why you'd use this instead of that rules set will vary from GM to GM. I'm just explaining part of what makes me enjoy a game like AD&D, which I play and run right now.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;455432I think this is the crux of our disagreement: You think mastering the rules means to make up a bunch of house rules. I don't.

Hm. Maybe that's just the wording that bothers me: it's not that I believe you have to formulate house rules to master a game. It's that I believe you must be actively engaged and interpret the rules yourself instead of surrendering to someone else's interpretation of what they mean. It's only an extension of that concept to point out that a game system that welcomes a GM making sense of them however he wishes is actually part of this.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;455432I couldn't agree more. Which is why I prefer my toolboxes to have screwdrivers in them, instead of being forced to say, "Okay. I've got a screw here but no screwdriver. So what I can do is take this awl and use it to whittle down the handle of the hammer to form a wooden screwdriver."

I'd rather have a complete set of tools and spend my time focused on how I can use those tools to run the game.

(I'm also not adverse to system tinkering. But I don't see any particular virtue in being forced to tinker with the system because the system wasn't designed properly in the first place.)

At the same time, I'd say I'm not expecting a set of prosthetic hands and a brain implent to be part of the toolbox. What you're just saying to me is that you want a set of rules to work in the greatest number of cases without you having to second guess them in any way shape or form. And that's a good thing when you don't want to do that kind of thinking, for whatever reason. I actually welcome that kind of thinking in AD&D's case, however, and find that it provides me pleasure running the game.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;455432Having a complete toolbox doesn't mean that the tools build the furniture for you.

It's more like some people will want a complete toolbox that comes with the furniture and you just have to drive the screws into them, whereas others will want to make the shelf from scratch, valuing the craft that comes out of it, getting more of a sense of satisfaction from the achievement, the fact they can decide whatever size the shelf will have, instead of having 4 feet planks delivered with it, and so on. And then of course, there are all shades of behaviors and ranges of satisfaction in between. If you expect me to say "well of course the complete toolbox is better than making a shelf from scratch," your hopes will be disappointed.

While I do understand what prompts you to say that, I do not have to agree with it. As a matter of fact, it would disagree with the actual enjoyment I get from my practice of the game at this point. And while I would not build a game system from scratch at the moment, unlike say, Lord Vreeg is doing himself, mostly because I am happy playing D&D, and that's what I really want to run and play, I also do welcome an active involvement in the way the rules are used, interpreted, and shaped over time throughout the campaign.

It's not something you have to enjoy yourself, but you've got no business telling me that my enjoyment is somehow wrong or not appropriate to your own sensibilities, and that therefore, I'd have to revise my own. You're not playing at my game table, so the point is moot, to me.

Late to the party, but let me see if I can tackle this.

Benoist favors rules enunciated in a vague or obscure manner because it gives him leeway to interpret them as he sees fit, making for a more malleable game, one which feels less formal and yet hinges closer to his vision as a GM. In my experience, this is a powerful asset, but can get somewhat taxing to the GM.

Justin, jibba et al. prefer clear and straightforward mechanics because they're robust and reliable, and being accessible to both GM and players, set up a lingua franca between both parts (which I feel is a good thing, even if the GM is the final arbiter, as players have a better grasp of their capabilities within the game world).

I can definitely see merits and limitations in both systems.

Did I get it right?

Quote from: Benoist;455439What you're just saying to me is that you want a set of rules to work in the greatest number of cases without you having to second guess them in any way shape or form. And that's a good thing when you don't want to do that kind of thinking, for whatever reason. I actually welcome that kind of thinking in AD&D's case, however, and find that it provides me pleasure running the game.

You're right. When I'm using a hammer, I prefer to focus on the task at hand instead of worrying whether or not the head is going to fly off on the next swing.

You think having a hammer with a loose head constitutes Extreme Carpentry and really helps to keep the woodworker engaged and focused because, hey, you never know when that piece of metal might go flying.

I think it just means that the hammer is a lousy tool.

It's not that I don't want to focus or be engaged. I just think there are better things to focus on than compensating for a crappy set of tools that can't do their job without being repaired first.

And, honestly, I can't see any virtue whatsoever in stopping a game so that you can spend some time figuring out, "WTF does this rule mean?" or "Is this blinding burst of light more like a spell (magical effect), petrification (it's based on vision, just like a medusa), paralyzation (since it incapacitates), or death ray/poison (since it's debilitating and it's kinda ray-like)?"

Hypothetically I can imagine a table full of philosophizing tinkerers who might find that sort of thing interesting. Realistically? I doubt your players are actually entertained by watching you intermittently put the head back on your hammer. Maybe there's a little bit of schadenfreude whenever the hammer hits you in the forehead on the back-swing, but that's probably it.

I'm just fundamentally unimpressed with the whole school of "the great thing about crappy hammers is that they encourage you to make your own hammers that don't suck". It seems like a pretty threadbare silver-lining. If you enjoy making hammers, more power to you. But I don't think you need the excuse you claim you need.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;455464You're right. When I'm using a hammer, I prefer to focus on the task at hand instead of worrying whether or not the head is going to fly off on the next swing.

But there you're assuming my hammer is no good. How about you assume my personal hammer is the best there is for the job, and not the one included with the kit?

Quote from: Justin Alexander;455464And, honestly, I can't see any virtue whatsoever in stopping a game so that you can spend some time figuring out, "WTF does this rule mean?" or "Is this blinding burst of light more like a spell (magical effect), petrification (it's based on vision, just like a medusa), paralyzation (since it incapacitates), or death ray/poison (since it's debilitating and it's kinda ray-like)?"

Your problem is that you're making a whole slew of assumptions about the manner in which I run my games instead of asking me, in which case I would tell you that I'm actually not stopping a game to figure out "WTF does this mean." Ever. That's something I do when I'm reading the DMG on my own, between games, which makes me think about the game and come up with different interpretations which inform my rulings when I actually run the game.

So. How about you don't assume what I'm doing and not doing at my game table and ask me instead?

Quote from: The Butcher;455461Late to the party, but let me see if I can tackle this.

Benoist favors rules enunciated in a vague or obscure manner because it gives him leeway to interpret them as he sees fit, making for a more malleable game, one which feels less formal and yet hinges closer to his vision as a GM. In my experience, this is a powerful asset, but can get somewhat taxing to the GM.

Justin, jibba et al. prefer clear and straightforward mechanics because they're robust and reliable, and being accessible to both GM and players, set up a lingua franca between both parts (which I feel is a good thing, even if the GM is the final arbiter, as players have a better grasp of their capabilities within the game world).

I can definitely see merits and limitations in both systems.

Did I get it right?

You can add to the list that, whereas I am able and willing to see Justin's and Jibba's point of view on this issue, they seem unable or unwilling to return the favor, and I find it frustrating.

I don't see any problem with Benoist playaing the game or viewing the rules in a way that works for him. We all came to this hobby from different angles I am sure. Personally I like hearing from people with different points of view, as I can apply new approaches to my GMing (taking what works and ignoring what doesn't).

Quote from: Benoist;455470You can add to the list that, whereas I am able and willing to see Justin's and Jibba's point of view on this issue, they seem unable or unwilling to return the favor, and I find it frustrating.

Never said I couldn't see where you were coming from I just think its a weak arguement.

I have house ruled every game I have ever played. Its my default method of play.

Unless I am much mistaken some of the other readers are mistaking your position as someone who is promoting house rules whereas from your previous positions on stuff I actually think that your position is more like "how can I run this game exactly as written and interpret the rules as closely to Gygax's original intent."  Although I might be totally wrong on that

But that's the thing, Jibba: it's not an argument on my part. I don't give much of a crap whether it seems weak or not. It just is. Though you certainly can tell me "well, I don't relate to that", the existence of this point of view for me and how it brings me satisfaction in the game is not something open for debate. It's not something I just made up. It's an explanation as to the reasons why, in actual practice, I'm comfortable with saving throws as they are laid out in AD&D and find them interesting for my purposes when running the game.

Quote from: jibbajibba;455482Unless I am much mistaken some of the other readers are mistaking your position as someone who is promoting house rules whereas from your previous positions on stuff I actually think that your position is more like "how can I run this game exactly as written and interpret the rules as closely to Gygax's original intent."  Although I might be totally wrong on that

Since I care about the intent behind the game, I don't want to run AD&D exactly as written. I don't. I don't use speed factors, don't use WP v. AC, and a whole host of other stuff in my games. Ultimately, whatever intent I myself have when I start running the game, it comes down to what's enjoyable and what's not at my game table. Therefore, what I want to do is understand the game, and run it according to what I make of it from there. What matters to me is to understand and then run the game my own way, rather than just ignore it entirely and run the thing in the dark, unaware of what went wrong when it does.

Quote from: Benoist;455406I think you're giving Phillip too little credit, to be honest. I'm not saying he's automatically right or that one shouldn't be offended by the aggressive way in which he chooses to present his points, but I'm confident he does have a point. Just giving in to the shit flinging just obfuscates everyone's arguments, IMO.


That's actually what I'm talking about.

In one case, you will have the universality of the categorization requiring little to no thinking on your part, and you'll just apply the game system without questioning your own judgment. It'll be easy and passive. No questions asked.

In the other, you a have a sample of resistances to specific sources, and from there you have to interpret these values and question your interpretation of them to come up with different applications in the game. It asks of you to master the rules, instead of having the rules do the thinking for you.

I totally understand how easy is the way to go for many people who don't want to think about these aspects of game play. For them, a clear, broad separation between means of resistance will work best.


I know this is something you don't see. Just because you don't see it or don't endorse it doesn't mean it's not a valid way to look at a game system, or that I derive less pleasure from doing so than you do playing d20. It's just a difference in perspective and what we enjoy about game play.

I don't consider a rules system to be some sort of program to run applications. It's a set of tools that allow me to run the game. From there, I appreciate when a game system lets me grow into my own interpretations, so that in the end the game becomes mine, and no one else's. The rules are not a third party looking over the table and adjudicating situations for me and my players. I am the one doing the adjudication. This game does work for me in the way it engages my mind continually, sometimes in the most surprising way.

The fact that you would interpret this as meaning the game "fundamentally doesn't work" tells me we're unlikely to come to any kind of agreement on this. By basically saying this, what I'm saying is obviously "wrong". The only way for us to solve this disagreement would be for me to accept that the rules should be some kind of seemless piece of programming that works like an app on your brain, that there is value in the rules beyond the way they are used at an actual game table, as a theoretical construct divorced from the people who interpret them, and I just don't agree with that. This is part of the illusionism 3rd ed embraced so readily with concepts like "game balance" and the like, and I have done my peace with it by rejecting it wholesale.

You see I think this is an arguement

I think you are saying .... the system you use means you don't think as much about how the games works as I do.

This is implied by
I totally understand how easy is the way to go for many people who don't want to think about these aspects of game play. For them, a clear, broad separation between means of resistance will work best.
- implication = other people don't think about the game as much as me

and

The rules are not a third party looking over the table and adjudicating situations for me and my players. I am the one doing the adjudication. This game does work for me in the way it engages my mind continually, sometimes in the most surprising way.
- implication = your mind is engaged continuously other peopels not so much

and in this point
 
In one case, you will have the universality of the categorization requiring little to no thinking on your part, and you'll just apply the game system without questioning your own judgment. It'll be easy and passive. No questions asked.
- implication everyone else just uses the rules passively without questioning their own judgement whereas you are an active participant questing for the one true way ....


Now I might be wrong but that looks like an arguement to me. Surely your basic premise is 'I am playing the game properly as it was meant to be played. The rest of you are at best passive consumers of a set of rules.'

Aren't you just presenting that arguement using a simple passive-agressive rhetorical style?

Quote from: jibbajibba;455560Aren't you just presenting that arguement using a simple passive-agressive rhetorical style?

If you go on a witch hunt, then you are, more than likely, going to find a witch.  Perhaps you are being too sensitive in your reading of Benoist's thoughts, and looking for a windmill to tilt at?

Quote from: Drohem;455597If you go on a witch hunt, then you are, more than likely, going to find a witch.  Perhaps you are being too sensitive in your reading of Benoist's thoughts, and looking for a windmill to tilt at?

Okay maybe

I have no axe to grind.

I normally have some respect for Ben's position (even when its wrong ) becuase he lays it out pretty clearly and is polite with the way he approaches stuff. I just think here he is being a bit disingenuous in saying he has no argument with those that perhaps prefer a different way of doing things when his posts seem to present a different position.

Personally I think its fine for everyone to hold different opinions (even if everybody else is wrong ). When I get into a debate I tend to lay my position out in a straightforward way as possible.

My default position on the Saving throw mechanic in D&D for example would be that the saves in AD&D were formed in reaction to a limited number of standard challenges that PCs faced and that they were a crude tool to provide a bit of game balance. The 3e version is a simplified mechanic that can more easily be broadly applied to any challenge the PCs might meet. I would say this is an improvement.

On the wider topic I have very little reverence for rules. As I say I house rule every game I ever played. This is partly due to arrogance on my part ( I really do suspect that I have as much or more knowledge than most game designers on how many times I can hit you with a sword in a minute for example) but mostly through play. I know the sort of games I like to play and part of that is I like to set a stable and well formed world in place where everyone understands how things function and where possible that process is as akin to how it would in the 'real' world as the rules allow.

I do have a pet Windmill which is where I get a sniff of 'The Designer knows best' and I just can't help tilting at it

Quote from: jibbajibba;455602Okay maybe

[snip]

I do have a pet Windmill which is where I get a sniff of 'The Designer knows best' and I just can't help tilting at it

Hehehe... cool, I can't begrudge a man his pet peeves and tilting at them- I do it all the time too!