Quote from: James McMurrayThat definitely wins the stupidest rule ever contest hands down. And if it doesn't win, I shudder at what would be worse than that.

I've looked hard. I've never found anything that could top it. Not in any intentional way at least.

Quote from: RPGPunditI actually read this book ages ago, but I don't recall: did they give any reason why this was so?

RPGPundit

Some incoherent ramblings about "genre emulation"  and perfectly capturing the essence of rome, where social classes prevail above everything else.

Quote from: jdrakehDitto. Some games make them easy to ignore, but in many d20/OGL games, they're an integral part of the system.

Re: FVLMINATA. . .

I recall this game being fairly well received at the time of its release. Is it worth $5 for a peek (I ask, 'cause I know where there's copy I can trade some stuff for).

I paid more than $5, and I was happy with it. It's not up to the level of Sengoku as a "historical" sourcebook, but it's chock full of Roman goodness.

(I just looked. Initiative goes by Rank first, if Rank is tied, then Pietas is used. On the other hand, that's pretty much it for the rule. Substituting another attribute, or even varying the attribute according to the nature of the conflict, would be dead easy.)

RPGs have to be balanced.

(Regarding initiative in FVLMINATA)

Quote from: Consonant DudeI've looked hard. I've never found anything that could top it. Not in any intentional way at least.

Er, seriously?  I don't get it.  It's clear, workable, and doesn't cause any clear game problems that I can see.  The worst that you can say about it is that it isn't realistic -- and it sure as hell doesn't top the list of most unrealistic rules.  

The start and end of turns is usually an abstraction which often don't matter.  For example, I often do initiative by just going around the table clockwise (i.e. based on where the player is seated), which is even less realistic to what's in-game than the rank rule.  At least rank has some sense in the abstraction, deriving from wargame rules where officers go first, and lower-rank men go afterwards since the officers are expected to lead.  

For example, the Lord of the Rings RPG Stun Effects rule isn't just nonsensical (i.e. striking with the flat of the blade being more incapacitating than striking with the edge) -- it serious mucks up the combat balance.  If you just wade into a bunch of trolls striking with the flat, you might not knock them out -- but they'll be so hampered by penalties that they're unable to hit or defend.

I really dislike the Appearance stat in oWoD and Exalted. It's fucking retarded. I was able to accept it as a mechanical artifact of a previous system in Exalted 1e, but keeping it for 2nd ed. was an awful design choice, especially since nWoD's stats were already designed, and they would have allowed social combat (one of the big talking points about 2e, if you recall) to rely on the basic mechanics of the system rather than requiring an arcane subsystem of little merit.

Quote from: WarthurThe World of Synnibarr had a rule that if the players caught the GM "cheating" - fudging a diceroll, misapplying or ignoring a rule, contradicting himself or deviating from his/her adventure notes - the GM had to rewind the action back to the point where the cheating occurred. Everyone reverted back to the state they were in at that time (although I think there was an XP award for the person who pointed it out).

And all adventure notes had to be handed over to the players after the adventure, so they could check that the GM hadn't cheated.

I never heard of World of Synnibarr until jrients mentioned Raven c.s. McCracken a couple of weeks ago... Hmm.

I also reserve a special loathing for rules that "work" (that is, they're not nonsensical Murphy's Rules) but that also subtly warp the fabric of the game around them in ultimately unpleasent ways.

Attacks of opportunity, Palladium's MDC/SDC, Extra Attacks in BESM, the superior value of Dexterity-type attributes in many games, etc.

Quote from: YamoI also reserve a special loathing for rules that "work" (that is, they're not nonsensical Murphy's Rules) but that also subtly warp the fabric of the game around them in ultimately unpleasent ways.

I don't think I'd call these "rules that work" so much as I'd call them "imbedded sub-systems that impact other aspects of the game" (based on your example, anyhow). Any rule that isn't flat-out broken technically "works". I don't know about you, but I very much prefer rules that work to those that dont

Quote from: WarthurThe World of Synnibarr had a rule that if the players caught the GM "cheating" - fudging a diceroll, misapplying or ignoring a rule, contradicting himself or deviating from his/her adventure notes - the GM had to rewind the action back to the point where the cheating occurred. Everyone reverted back to the state they were in at that time (although I think there was an XP award for the person who pointed it out).

And all adventure notes had to be handed over to the players after the adventure, so they could check that the GM hadn't cheated.

That's not a stupid rule, that's the single coolest idea Raven c.s. McCracken ever had.  Only a GM with balls of steel would run a Synnibarr campaign by the book, because the game expects you not to take the thousand little shortcuts most GMs use ever session.  I wish I were hardcore enough to give it a try.

AD&D 1e no swords for clerics. This rule really pissed me off as a kid. Especially because everyone agreed it was crap, but for some reason none of our DMs could bring themselves to ditch it due to the idea that it might create some sort of game imbalence.
IMO, AD&D 1e always seemed full of rules specifically designed to limit  enjoyment.

QuoteThat's not a stupid rule, that's the single coolest idea Raven c.s. McCracken ever had.

Heh.  Good to see some people like this kind of thing.  Somewhat similar to what I'm working on...

Quote from: jhkim(Regarding initiative in FVLMINATA)


Er, seriously?  I don't get it.  It's clear, workable, and doesn't cause any clear game problems that I can see.  The worst that you can say about it is that it isn't realistic --

The worse I can say is that it's the dumbest idea I ever saw in a roleplaying game, barring unintentional bad design, of course. It's not a matter of lack of realism. It's a matter of stupidity.

Quote from: jhkimThe start and end of turns is usually an abstraction which often don't matter.  For example, I often do initiative by just going around the table clockwise (i.e. based on where the player is seated), which is even less realistic to what's in-game than the rank rule.

I agree that taking turns might not matter much. That's no excuse for making a shit rule that insults intelligence.

Quote from: jhkimAt least rank has some sense in the abstraction, deriving from wargame rules where officers go first, and lower-rank men go afterwards since the officers are expected to lead.

The problem is, FVLMINATA is not a wargame, nor a game that strictly focuses on military conflicts. The rule sucks the minute it is used in play and doesn't add anything positive, be it realism, genre-emulation or drama.

I'd actually prefer complete randomness. I'd know the designer was just lazy instead of being a hopeless moron.

Quote from: RPGPunditWhats the single rule that you hate in a given RPG system? The one that ruins or almost ruins a set of rules that you otherwise like?

For example, I detest "Attacks of Opportunity", it almost ruins my experience of any D20 game that uses them.

RPGPundit

Well, in the stargate SG1 rules I hate the way criticals are handled, in that a critical hit/success isn't one unless someone spends some sort of point to 'activate' it, that sucks.

The one rule in gurps I don't like is the way shotguns have a recoil of 1, same as no recoil at all. I know they did it for the autofire hit reasons, but still in cases where the ACTUAL recoil of a weapon might matter a lot, like firing one in zero G, that would be a major problem.

Quote from: jdrakehI don't think I'd call these "rules that work" so much as I'd call them "imbedded sub-systems that impact other aspects of the game" (based on your example, anyhow). Any rule that isn't flat-out broken technically "works". I don't know about you, but I very much prefer rules that work to those that dont

Is that like every application actually works as designed?