Game Design Matters?

>>51508195
I doubt there's many people who would argue that game design doesn't matter at all.

More reasonable is the position that other factors can outweigh design. Familiarity, for example. If your players can't be bothered to learn the system, then what use was it to buy the game with excellent design?

PnP game design is also somewhat subjective. You can say William Faulkner was objectively a more important and original writer than Danielle Steele, but that doesn't stop people from buying her paperbacks in the airport.

The most important thing a system does for me is tell me what's important in the system--what situations do the rules address? What kind of interactions emerge when these rules are in play?

For example, I appreciate a lot about the design of GURPs, but even the light/starter pack version includes rules to describe in detail exactly how much a character can lift, exactly how fast they run, which is your dominant hand, etc. This implies to a newbie that all this is important, when 99% of the time, all you need to know is a relative hierarchy. Trying to simulate reality down to which hand is dominant implies every other greebly little factor could be in play.

Despite its flaws, I think this is a strength of old school D&D. Combat is abstracted to a single roll, implications of the spell descriptions are left to the DM rather than fine tuned like a legal contract, and many situations are left to player creativity and description (what use is it to know exactly how much you can lift in pounds, when the GM decides how heavy the rock is anyways--isn't it just as arbitrary?)

>>51508444

I'd argue you can also quite objectively assess a system based on how well it executes its premise.

If a system claims to achieve something, or that a certain rule works a certain way, if the mechanics fail to achieve that or actively undermine it there isn't really any other conclusion.

But this keys into what you said, which I agree with- Good design means knowing what your system cares about, and focusing the bulk of the mechanics on that, rather than labouring irrelevant extras with excessive rules.

File: 250px-182Bellossom.png (58KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 250x250px

>How significant is the system you're using for the experience, and how big a deal are flaws the system might possess?

It varies dramatically, with some groups sticking as close as they possibly can to the rules, other groups being quite loose and perhaps just building around a core mechanic.

For the most part, people tend to like to argue from the RAW stance, because system arguments are mostly about exchanging complaints until everyone leaves upset but convinced that they came out on top. Often, these arguments end up being rather far removed from how anyone actually plays the games, because they revolve around assuming the only way to play is in the absolute worst ways with no possible opportunity for remedy.

Discussions on the other hand tend to lean towards highlighting how important rule zero is and exploring what can be done with the system. Often, the flaws of most popular games are well known and easily remedied, and have stopped being any significant concern. A familiar example is D&D 4e's early monsters having too much HP, which is hardly worth obsessing about since there are a few easy guidelines for adjusting that to better suit a group's tastes, allowing the discussion to move past that moot point..

>If ensuring all the mechanics involved in the system are fit to purpose, that the options are decently balanced and that it all generally works isn't a big deal, what else should they be doing?

The major job of a game designer is less about producing balanced mechanics but rather introducing interesting options. Balance is a bit of a modern concern, and even then doesn't really extend to all modern games because there's other goals that are more important. Ultimately, a group that wants to break a game can break any game, and with a GM having easy and swift abilities for hammering down any standing nails, the question of balance is always ultimately secondary.

>>51508745
>focusing the bulk of the mechanics on that
I agree with what you said, except for this.

Just because a game is about something, doesn't mean it needs narrowly focused mechanics pertaining to that. I've noticed that storygames in particular sometimes work against their own intentions with mechanics that interfere with the kind of story they're trying to create.

For example, the quantum adventurer's pack in Dungeon World--it always has whatever you need in it (up to a certain number of uses), to cut down on bookkeeping... but isn't there an interesting story that results from not packing something you need?

>>51508195
>cleverly worded edition war bait
Mechanics matter exactly as much as the players care to use them..

>>51509051
When that something is things like chalk or rope? Nah.

Although, I think I remember a variant rule from one of the OSR books (dunno which). Your pack has a number, and you have to roll under the number to find what you are looking for. An attempt lowers this number by 1 (maybe it was only for successful attempts?). When it dips below a certain number, it's used up.

This keeps the "drama", as little as it is, but also skips the part where you fill a page with the number and weight of ropes, ccandles, ink, chalk, mirrors, salt, tacks, hammer, nails, iron spikes, crowbars, poles, pickaxes, shovels, waterskins, pots etc. you have.

>>51509012

You've only really discussed flaws that have clear and obvious solutions, though. What about situations where it's a lot more muddy and unclear? In those situations starting from RAW is necessary, at least as a frame of reference.

And for all the sorts of groups on the spectrum lay out, isn't it still better if the mechanics themselves are good, whether you lose them or not? Even if a GM can fix imbalances that come up in play, isn't it a better use of their time if they don't need to?

>>51509103
Seems like everyone but you is having a civil discussion.

Not all players or GMs are versed in dozens of systems, so any designer who gives a shit about their work should at least offer a decent foundation and some guidance on how and when to use the rules (ie, the paragraph at the beginning of many games that tell you not to roll an agility check to see if a character can tie his shoes).

PnP RPG's are innately "incomplete", because they leave room for player choice and imagination (which is why they require a GM or at least some form of arbitration)--unlike board games, which should have rules that cover pretty much any position/event in the game space (you can't drive your car off the monopoly board and go run over pawns on the chessboard next door).

For that reason, I dislike most games that try to decide everything "objectively" with a RNG or a rule. Pure simulation should always take a back seat to playability, unless you're designing a war game for the DoD or something (or your market is strictly limited to people who are entertained by exhaustively detailed simulation).

>>51509051
>isn't there an interesting story that results from not packing something you need?
Sure, but there's nothing in the game that prevents you from pushing that story if you want. But it's always in your hands whether you want to push it that way. The point of "always having whatever you need" is to not let things that are decided beforehand (like what you have in your pack) stop you from blurting out something you find interesting later on. The stories in DW are made because you're interested in creating story, not because you're interested in seeing what kind of story happens as a result of your interaction with pre-determined factors. It's a story-facilitating caveat, not a get out of jail free card. If you use it to shut down a story, then you're using it wrong and probably don't really get the point of the game.

>>51509103
/tg/ was a lot better when the majority of posters were already acclimated to 4chan culture prior to browsing /tg/ for the first time.

We didn't have to deal with the constant accusations that every question, comment, or joke post was BAIT BAIT OMG FUKKIN BAIT WEAK BAIT TROLL.

>>51509395
Instead we have /pol/ and bait threads like these.

>>51509409

Asking questions and trying to start a discussion, which has thusfar been extremely civil and reasonable, is 'bait'? That word has lost all meaning.

>>51509231
> What about situations where it's a lot more muddy and unclear?

Those tend to be matters of personal taste. In fact, they are almost exclusively matters that vary depending on the group's opinions.
Even going back to the 4e HP issue, some groups may prefer higher HP.

>Even if a GM can fix imbalances that come up in play, isn't it a better use of their time if they don't need to?

A GM should be tweaking the game regardless, because games are delivered in a one-size-fits-all package. This includes simple things such as choosing some options rather than others, and otherwise tailoring the game to better suit your personal vision.
While starting mechanics being balanced is good, it's by no means the most important part of a system, and in fact is largely a secondary concern because the simplest way to balance everything is to strip everything of any mechanical significance. While this works for simple narrative games, it's an unpopular decision that exchanges variety for balance.

Also, some people actually have fun balancing systems or otherwise working with unbalanced parties. Exalted and other StoryTeller system games are examples of games that are widely unbalanced and still retain popularity, and GURPS is effectively a "pick parts and hopefully try to construct a balanced system" game that likewise enjoys popularity, perhaps in part because of the effort required into eventually producing a balanced game with it.

>>51509466

I agree that GMs should be tweaking a game, but there's a clear difference between tuning things to preference and having to take action because a rule in the game is not fit for purpose.

>>51509433
It's funny how the Internet has sped up the depreciation of meaning.

It was only three years ago that "cuck" meant "someone who voluntarily lets their wife sleep with another man". Now it just means "Someone who said something I don't like and I can't formulate an actual response".

Nowadays, "bait" just means "OP asked an open-ended question".

>>51509512

It's the sad fact of the internet. The ability of human beings to communicate with one another through a huge variety of means has vastly outstripped our emotional intelligence and actual skill in communication using those platforms, leading to the strange and toxic habits forming pretty much everywhere in the digitally connected world. I still love the internet, but damn we suck at using it.

Also, congratulations for having your point proven less than a minute after making it. >>51509524 really is a champ.

>>51509466
>Exalted and other StoryTeller system games are examples of games that are widely unbalanced and still retain popularity,

I think the two are unrelated. A game doesn't have to be balanced to be popular and enjoyed; the argument put forth is that it's better if it's balanced than if it's not (what "balanced" means can vary game to game however), not that balance and good game design in general is a necessity for success, popularity, or even fun.

It's like... having a AC isn't needed for a car to function as a car, but having one if you desire to use it improves the worth of the car without question.

>>51509495
Are you hoping to turn a hypothetical molehill into a hypothetical mountain?

Yes, designers have oversights and no game is free from flaws. Exalted could be essentially called more of a bundle of flaws masquerading as an actual system. But, when all is said and done, if you like the themes, feel, and fluff of Exalted, the long list of bizarre design choices ultimately is less important.

For some people who stick closely to a system, out-of-the-box balance/imbalance may be a decisive deal breaker. For most people, however, even a very balanced game is going to end up unbalanced in some way in actual play, and rule zero is enough to patch up their end user experience while they focus on the more important features of the game.

I'm also kind of getting tired of these leading questions that seem largely just for the sake of prolonging this discussion.

>>51508195
A good system, when used for the right setting and themes, can actively enhance the experience through its mechanics. A bad system (or an inappropriate system, regardless of its quality) will only ever be what the players and GM can manage to wring out of it, and in fact can make things WORSE if the mechanics clash with the narrative too badly. Imagine trying to run a muck-farmers-trying-to-survive-a-war campaign in Exalted and you'll see what I mean.

>>51509605
If having the AC drops the gas mileage down to 8 mpg and makes the car smell, it's not an improvement without question.

Balance often comes with sacrifices, the leading sacrifices being mechanical variety and depth. Stricter systems or systems that have less options tend to be more balanced, but they also tend to be less fun overall.

Unbalanced games that are popular tend to be considered good because the designers were faced with decisions and erred on the side of providing more and more varied options to players.

>>51509698

>Yes, designers have oversights and no game is free from flaws. Exalted could be essentially called more of a bundle of flaws masquerading as an actual system. But, when all is said and done, if you like the themes, feel, and fluff of Exalted, the long list of bizarre design choices ultimately is less important.

But it would be better if it wasn't that, right?

>>51509784
>balance means everything ends up the same
When will this meme end?

>>51509784
>If having the AC drops the gas mileage down to 8 mpg and makes the car smell, it's not an improvement without question.

You can just turn the AC off. I specifically used that example because it has no permanent drawbacks.

Not all mechanical changes are like that, but please don't pretend that, say, Exalted is balanced to the point that any more would ruin the fluff or feel of the game.

File: Gygax (3).jpg (59KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 850x400px

>>51508195

>>51509811
Theoretically? It's only maybe, not certainly.

Take what happened with D&D 3e to 4e. The idea was to make it more balanced and more streamlined, and while these were seemingly obvious design concerns, the popular opinion is that 4e went too far in many regards, reducing what many people considered to be important aspects of variety and performing many unnecessary and unpopular changes.

Improving games is not something as simple as identifying issues and then trying to fix them. All you need to do is point at Pathfinder as an example of a game that sought to improve a pre-existing game, but ended up introducing new problems in the process, like its flawed CMB math, as a result of moving too far.

With everyone having different opinions on what makes games good, and these often coming into conflict with the myriad perceptions of what a game is for, putting balance as too high a priority has often caused problems from not only excessive applications of balance, but at times ended up with the game becoming even MORE unbalanced as a result.

With a final D&D example of this, the 2e Magic User was underpowered at low experience and overpowered at high experience. For 3e, they sought to reduce their abilities at high levels while improving their low level capabilities, but this ended up with them going into excess by improving low level wizards too much and this followed them into higher levels as well.

Balance is good. Putting it as too high a priority can lead to excessive attempts to "fix" problems that need subtler and more delicate touches.

tl:dr. a game that has all its current problems "fixed" is still not necessarily a better game, and in fact may actually be worse.

File: Okay.png (383KB, 680x875px) Image search: [Google]

383KB, 680x875px

The problem with game mechanics and focus is very simple: give a man something and he'll invariably be compelled to use it.

I understand the logic of old school D&D. It's not about combat and battles it's about ~Exploration~ but the exploration is all freeforming and talking with maybe one or two dice rolls for abilities. But combat is a life threatening situation so naturally people want a good sized list of hard set rules that need to be followed with plenty of different abilities to make sure you don't die when you do encounter a dangerous monster. Of course D&D also has instant kill death traps and environmental hazards which can only be gotten around by freeforming essentially so I guess even in THAT sense it isn't consistent.

Lemme summarize the problem: if you grab some random chucklefuck and bring him along on a big jungle trek through wilderness then give him a gun "just in case" chances are he's going to make an ass out of himself one drunken stupor night and either hurt himself or piss off local authorities something fierce. And that's in a real-world context where actions have consequences. A game incentivizes this MUCH MORE for the simple fact it's well, a game.

You can't expect to give people a chunk of feats, skills, abilities and rules related to performing combat then suddenly whine when players wanna fucking use them. It's human nature that when you're given something you wanna play with it. See what it does and all that. Explore your options. And if your only options are related to fighting then guess what's going to fucking happen.

"But what about ROLEPLAYING" you ask well here's the thing: Roleplaying isn't always easy. It requires you to think about things outside the box. It requires you to get inventive sometimes and most of all: you still need context. You need to know what your character is capable of and your abilities only give you so much information. It's not something people can reliably do all the time.

>>51509859
>You can just turn the AC off. I specifically used that example because it has no permanent drawbacks.

If your example depends on it not being applicable in order for you to offer it up as an example, that's just a particularly poor example.

The point I'm trying to make is that most decisions include drawbacks, many of them not so immediately obvious.

Have you ever wondered why games are not all balanced, even though it would be very easy to do so just by making every option identical? It's because most people consider variety to be more important than balance.

Having balance requires measures of sacrifice. While it's a good thing to have, it is by no means the most important, especially if the idea is to create a product that can be used by a variety of different groups for a variety of different games.

>>51510135

> reducing what many people considered to be important aspects of variety and performing many unnecessary and unpopular changes.

It's also important to remember that a lot of the complaints about 4e were just straight up wrong or misinformation spread by a bunch of whiners who couldn't stand their pet game was being phased out.

It's true 4e changed much but a lot of the complaints against it don't actually hold much water ESPECIALLY if you compare them to the complaints about 3e which to this day ring as being semi-legitimate.

The only real complaints about 4e that were actually true were fucked up monster health and damage in the early game and a lack of utility options.

>>51510247

This links in to the earlier comments about systems needing to focus.

If a system dedicates the largest part of its wordcount, it's logical to assume that combat is a key part of the system that you should be involved in relatively frequently.

If it's meant to be a system all about avoiding combat but you still dedicate a huge number of rules to it, something has gone wrong in the design process.

>>51510300

That just seems like excusing laziness and incompetence on the part of designers.

It's perfectly possible to create systems with a lot of interesting options that are also balanced. Creating a system with lots of options and not bothering to balance them is just laziness, while creating a balanced system but adding no options just shows a lack of creativity and good ideas.

>>51510300

>Have you ever wondered why games are not all balanced, even though it would be very easy to do so just by making every option identical?

As >>51509830 said

>When will this meme end?

>>51510300

>It's because most people consider variety to be more important than balance.

See the only time I've EVER heard that being a complaint about 4e is that all the classes have a similar structure.

Which to me is silly because literally what's happening is that each class has a shitload of powers. You want variety? You have a FUCKTON of variety. Arguably more with certain classes than 3e ever offered you. You can't look at two classes with similar structure then say "they're exactly the same" when both classes rely heavily on their abilities and fail to mention anything about said abilities.

>>51510247
I like this post. This is a good post.

Players are usually given the most toys for combat, even in games that supposedly are low combat (like World of Darkness).

I'd never thought about this, but its a great insight.

>>51510301
A majority of players dramatically disagree with your defense and assessment.
I understand that this is a sore topic for you though, so I'm not going to bother poking the matter further.

>>51510135
>reducing what many people considered to be important aspects of variety and performing many unnecessary and unpopular changes.

This was more a matter of presentation, not how the rules changed. Battlemaster exists in 5e, and it's basically a 4e (essentials) fighter.

Once a brand establishes itself, popularity has increasingly less to do with quality, and more to do with branding, marketing and familiarity.

>Improving games is not something as simple as identifying issues and then trying to fix them.

Sometimes it is. Sometimes it isn't.

>All you need to do is point at Pathfinder as an example of a game that sought to improve a pre-existing game

It did not. It sought to supplant a pre-existing game so Paizo can keep selling material for it. And it _still_ managed to improve the game in many respects (reeling in polymorphs and cleric buffs, unifying more mechanics, eliminating dead levels); and the steps where they made it worse were 90% things that were discrete changes, so if they had not made them, you'd have ended up with a better game.

>With a final D&D example of this, the 2e Magic User was underpowered at low experience and overpowered at high experience. For 3e, they sought to reduce their abilities at high levels while improving their low level capabilities, but this ended up with them going into excess by improving low level wizards too much and this followed them into higher levels as well.

So if you are incompetent at balance and focus on it, you may screw up. Fine. This doesn't mean you shouldn't try to balance, it means you should fucking do it right.

Your reply reminds me of a recent blogpost of The Angry DM. He raised similar points about changing the balance of 5e.

>>51510326
This.

You won't get it perfectly right, but this is no excuse to not try; and if you tried but failed, it's no excuse to not keep trying.

>>51510337

Honestly, when it comes to 4e the complaints seemed purely about the layout and formatting. Because everything looked the same people assumed it all worked the same.

You're right though, in practice 4e classes are much more distinct in their mechanical identity than the 3.PF equivalents.

>>51510336
Do you understand I presented an extreme to make a point, completely unrelated to the post you linked it to?

>>51510349

The vast majority of complaints about 4e were rooted in Feel, not Fact.

This doesn't make them illegitimate- If you're getting involved in something as a leisure activity and you aren't enjoying it that's a bad thing- but it does make them somewhat tangential to a discussion of system mechanics.

>>51510326
>It's perfectly possible to create systems with a lot of interesting options that are also balanced.

I've played about forty different systems at this point, including the majority of the more popular titles, and ignoring homebrew and joke systems.

I've yet to see a game that was not easily broken. In fact, I have a friend who's major entertainment is breaking apart systems.

If you can tell me about this fable system with a lot of interesting options that's still balanced to the point where my friend would not be able to tear it apart in a single sitting, I'd love to hear what this game is.

>>51510422

Balanced does not mean 'is impossible to break'.

It's all about how easy the balance problems are to run into, and how significant they are.

A well balanced game will have everyone on roughly the same level, and even an optimised character won't be lightyears ahead of another unless they're actively trying to be a dick.

A badly balanced system, for example, would offer two character options as equal and different choices, but have the two be of such completely different power and scope that it's virtually impossible for one player to ever interact with the game on the same level as the other, no matter how much they optimise and how little the other player does. That example should be quite familiar to most people on /tg/.

>>51509512
That's not really true. It's most often used as a pejorative against people who agitate for open borders and the destruction of national identity.

If you can't see how that relates to the literal definition of "cuck," then you're probably a cuck.

>>51510422
What >>51510473 says.

But I like talking about my favorite balanced game, so go ahead and break Strike!

https://www.sendspace.com/file/2fuwd4

Combat chapter starts at 85 IIRC. Assume that only the basic non-combat systems are used.

Also note; wouldn't fixing that brokenness then improve the game? Or your argument is that none of the brokeness you found could be fixed in ways that wouldn't improve the rest of the game negatively?

>>51510354
>You won't get it perfectly right, but this is no excuse to not try; and if you tried but failed, it's no excuse to not keep trying.

No one is advocating ignoring balance or trying to say that balance isn't important.

The issue is that balance is not THE most important feature of a game, especially not at the costs some designers are willing to pay for it. If a designer is sacrificing too much variety, mechanical depth, thematical concepts, or other concerns in order to make the game more balanced, he is not improving the game.

It's a little funny, because what I'm advocating is being a bit more balanced with balancing.

>>51510593
>If a designer is sacrificing too much variety, mechanical depth, thematical concepts, or other concerns in order to make the game more balanced, he is not improving the game.

No one is really pushing for this, I think. OP asked if game design matters, and the fact that we are arguing about how much a single part of game design matters I think proves that we all think that yes, game design absolutely fucking matters.

>>51510593
No one said balance is the most important thing, anon, but many people who have played a number of games will advocate it is fairly important for actualized play, rather than the constant theorycraft you see people talking about online.

>>51510640
The answer is that it varies, and what people want out of a system differs.

For some people, out-of-the-box balance is essential. For most, however, it would be nice but is ultimately unnecessary.

I think the major issue is that some people here are trying to argue for some sort of universal, objective standard, so that they can feel more justified in exalting or condemning a game.

For example, lets say Strike! is balanced for the sake of argument. But, it has a number of weaknesses, mostly because its loose narrative structure kind of deflates the importance of its tactical combat. It comes off as a weird mix of 4e and Fate, and the question of whether or not the combat is balanced is less important than whether or not the combat feels like it has a substantial purpose. This is in part up to the GM and their presentation, but many groups will find that Strike!'s somewhat eclectic mix just isn't for them.

To say Strike! is a good game because it is balanced is just another opinion, just like saying Strike! is a bad game because they think the aesthetics are atrocious or the combat too gamey. What we need to do is appreciate that different people will have different opinions, and that while game design matters, what parts of game design matters differently to different people.

>>51510940
>But, it has a number of weaknesses, mostly because its loose narrative structure kind of deflates the importance of its tactical combat.

Right, so the game being balanced doesn't impact it negatively; being sorta wishy-washy-narra-tivey, and many players finding that weird does.

So if you grabbed the balanced system and bolted it on something that was more concrete, more fitting to the taste of the average player, you'd have a balanced game without the aforementioned perceived issue.

I plan to do this for 5e and upload it to the WotC shop.

>>51511042

>The WotC shop

Be careful man. Last I heard the copyright rules and revenue share on that place was god fucking awful.

>>51511075
If I cared about money I'd do a kickscammer furry RPG game where you can point-buy build your gender.

>>51511094
... and a gaiden game where you can shoot them, for 'murrica!

>>51511094
I have that built into my system

you just get the human stat block, but get some of the abilities of the animal in question for the Furry Races

>>51511042
<So if you grabbed the balanced system and bolted it on something that was more concrete,

Part of what makes narrative systems "balanced" is that the mechanics have less of an impact and are less concrete. The more mechanical depth a system has, the more tangible its mechanics are, the less balanced it's going to be, as a natural result of the smaller differences being more noticeable.

And, overall, you're trying to assume the tastes of the average player, but not all players. The aforementioned perceived issue may be lessened for some, but it may still be too much for some players or now not enough for others.

What you're trying to do isn't a bad idea and worth exploring, but we're still very far away from creating a system that appeals to everyone equally.

>>51511184

>creating a system that appeals to everyone equally.

This is an impossible thing and generally a bad idea even to try for.

Knowing your audience and who you're designing for is a key part of making a good game, along with having a strong and consistent core concept as an anchor for your design.

>>51511184
>What you're trying to do isn't a bad idea and worth exploring, but we're still very far away from creating a system that appeals to everyone equally.

Right, and that's not even my goal; I'm just trying to explain that I think balance can almost always be improved without giving up much of anything, and that a solid, balanced foundation in no way holds the game back from having any sort of theme the designer wants.

>>51511259
> I'm just trying to explain that I think balance can almost always be improved without giving up much of anything

Part of what makes narrative systems "balanced" is that the mechanics have less of an impact and are less concrete. The more mechanical depth a system has, the more tangible its mechanics are, the less balanced it's going to be, as a natural result of the smaller differences being more noticeable.

>>51511309
And then you can take that imbalance and chip it away until it is at a satisfactory level.

Maybe it won't be as balanced as narrative games (although, I think Strike's narrative skill rules are probably by far the weakest part of the game, balance wise and et al), but you can improve it to a point where even people who take issue with balance won't mind (or if they do, they can fix it for themselves).

Like... Is the 5e skill system considered balanced by you? It has a lot of drawbacks imo (small modifier vs large dice range) but it doesn't seem especially imbalanced. Maybe some skills and stats could get a bit more love, but I can't think of a way that the base system is less balanced than Strike's.

>>51510306
when will this meme end?
see>>51510247

>>51510498
It's not just political, /pol/, it's universally applicable: ANY act whereby you allow yourself to be willingly fucked over is 'cucking'. ANY act where you submit, ANY non-alpha activity in fact.

>>51511933

That sounds dumb, arbitrary and ludicrously subjective.

>>51512294
Watchu gonna do about it, cuck? Cry on tumblr?

>>51512294
erm, it ALSO sounds like the definition of 'cuckold', metaphorically extended. Funny how that works, eh?

>>51508195
>Does the GMs ability to fix things via rule zero hold a much larger sway than design itself?
Two mistakes. There isn't always GM and there is no rule zero. (Outside of games that say that they have a rule zero).

And game's rules and design is incredibly important.
I've been reading Masks rules lately. It's a game about young teenage superheroes who still haven't figured out themselves and thus change the way they see themselves based on what others tell them to be. And that's all directly in the game's mechanics in a way that it's basically impossible to play the game without engaging those themes.

Also system directly affects the tone and style of the game.
In Burning Wheel when starting character crosses a road, they get lost in sewers and break a leg.
In Fate a starting character can punch down a mob group and save the Major with minor issues as long as they want it hard enough.

That's why I never prefer generic systems. If there is something so cool and interesting in a theme or setting that I wan to play it, I also want there to be mechanics in the game that handle it with sufficient detail and focus.

>>51513856

This is exactly how I feel about systems. I find it hard to wrap my head around it when people say they don't think a systems mechanics are important, because for me a well designed game is built to support those themes and ideas.

The best games are built from the ground up to support their concept and premise effectively. It's why generic core mechanics and arbitrary stat or skill lists always seem so counter intuitive to me, because they're so disconnected from whatever the game is actually meant to be about.

>>51508195
Game design matters. A bad system can run a game even if the GM is good.

A good system doesn't guarantee a good campaign, however.

And what a good system needs is subjective and varies from person to person.

Some people want simplicity with balance. Others want a wide variety of character options and varies mechanics to keep things interesting.

This is why you get people who prefer one game over another, such as preferring 5e over Pathfinder, or vice versa. Both systems are lacking in different areas, and what shortcomings have a bigger impact on enjoyment will vary from one player to the next.

>>51514011
Such systems turns to be versatile "works for a variety of game types" systems.

>>51514011
>>51514388
Generic systems are really good for when you want to play a game that lacks a purpose built system, or you dislike the purpose built system.

For instance I like Shadowrun. I have a friend who runs the Shadowrun seeing in FATE because he doesn't like it's fiddly item based mechanics, but to me, Shadowrun is a game about testing the quality of your operation plans, and that includes thinking of the right tools to bring, and date doesn't do that.

But when I want to run a homebrew scifi action campaign based on a mashup of Star With EU, Stargate, Mass Effect, Halo, Andromeda, Farscape, and Breath of Fire 4, Final Fantasy Tactics, taking themes and elements from all of the above and trying to build a coherent campaign integrating purpose selected pieces from them, chances are I either want a generic system, or I need to pick a specific system that's "close enough" and then homebrew whatever it's lacking.

I managed it okay in EotE, but it involved reverse engineering how races and careers and characters and NPCs and equipment worked and was built in order to be able to build the like 50 pages of homebrewed material I made heavy heavy use of, along with some deliberate changes to the core system to suit what I was going for in the campaign.

And looking back on it, it might have been easier to just homebrew vehicles and equipment for GURPS.

>>51511933
>>51512294
>>51512338
>>51512413

Its because people got bored of just saying faggot/faggot got reclaimed by actual faggots.

New ways to say 'effeminate as bad' are cuck and fucboi, basically both used by middle class white folk, just slightly different political orientations. Get with current year.

>>51514596
The truth is that the insult that has disappeared after cuck became popular is virgin.

Now, who is the one type of person who literally cannot be a cuck. A virgin.

Connect the dots and wake up sheeple.

>>51514822
Shut up, virgin!

>>51514596
>'effeminate as bad'
See, this right here is absolutely wrong. Anon has personalized it: he thinks we big meanies are picking on his effeminate ways. No no: it has nothing to do with being effeminate - it is all about dominance. And their is neither masculinity nor femininity in 'dominance'. Dominance is a non-sexual issue - it crosses ALL boundaries. You are a 'cuck' if you have been dominated. Has nothing to do with beliefs or sexual predilections or sexual identity: being a cuck is being submissive.
Get with current year, fucboi faggot cuck.

>>51510366
If it's unrelated then why exactly bring it up? Also, for reference, going into extremes like that when the premise is based off a fallacy doesn't really do anything to help your case, even if you did have a solid point to make.

>>51515173
Waitaminnit

Cuck isn't about you being dominated. Cuck is about being too much of a bitch to do anything about someone taking what's yours.

>>51515829
>Cuck isn't about you being dominated. Cuck is about being too much of a bitch to do anything about someone taking what's yours.
I'll take "What is 'Being Dominated'" for $1000, Alex.

>>51516072
>>51515829
>>51515318
>>51515173

Can we stop debating the meaning of a stupid meme insult and actually talk about games?

>>51516080
What do you want to say?

>>51508195
A system is definitely important. If you say the GM is the engineer of the game, then the system is basically the building blocks you're given. You can turn most systems into almost any sort of game, ignore rules, tack on rules, but if you want to stay reasonably close so you're not just effectively playing an entirely different system it will affect the quality of the game.
Like other people have said, it also depends on what your players what. Players who are interested in DEEP and IMMERSIVE roleplaying won't be interested in a system that puts all emphasis on combat. Players interested in combat and that alone aren't going to care about 10 000 rules for roleplaying and out-of-combat interactions.
I mean consider this - do you think you can run an enjoyable game with FATAL?

>>51515173
>cuckboi thinks bitches can be dominant

>>51515173
>being a cuck is being submissive.

Yet subs have all the power in an actual BDSM relationship.

>>51517058
>t. submissive cuck
If you had power then you wouldn't be the sub, dumbass.

>>51517153
A BDSM relationship hinges on the person who wants to be the sub. If nobody wants to be the sub then there's no relationship. It's like how companies work - even though they have billions and billions, manpower, expertise, and so on, none of that matters. The real power is in the hand of their customers. If the customers don't want to buy then all of that power goes underwater.
Now can we get back on track?

>>51517182
There is no shortage of submissive cucks who would willingly drink piss if they thought that it'd make their partner happy.

Just like there's no shortage of morons who will waste money on low-entry garbage simply because it's attached to a brand that they recognize from their childhood.

>>51508444
>I doubt there's many people who would argue that game design doesn't matter at all.

I have literally argued against this multiple times on /tg/. Not even being hyperbolic, it's not like they were saying it's not a big deal or something, people will argue that the way a game is designed is literally and wholly irrelevant to how it is played or how well it accomplishes its design goals.

It baffles me.

File: 635b1e58edb134471514bd898e1eb08d.jpg (2MB, 2860x3300px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2860x3300px

>>51510590

I am in the development credits of Strike! I can safely say that the game has several breaking points.

I completely and utterly disavow the entirety of Strike!'s noncombat. The math behind it is far too punishing (e.g. on average, if a success is worth 1, then a twist is supposed to be worth -1, and twists are supposed to be common). The wealth system is laughable and gameable. The listed tricks are either too broad (e.g. anything to do with detecting deceit) or uselessly narrow (e.g. turning a fair fight into a dirty one, as long as you are not actually using tactical combat). Some party members are liable to vastly outpace others in skill acquisition; I should know from a campaign I once played in, wherein my PC had learned four new skills a few sessions in, while another PC had learned zero.

Kits also have shoddy balance between them. The most flagrant example is the sorcerer kit, which grants far too much with its advances, particularly Widened Expertise.

As far as noncombat is concerned, there are a few minor balance quibbles, such as the new Area Denial being flagrantly overpowered, and the martial artist now being the weakest class in the game due to a lack of actual class features. Also, by level 3, 5, or 7, it is likely that a given party will have Fast Reactions on all of its characters, making the initiative subsystem meaningless. Again, these are minor.

Where Strike!'s balance truly snaps in half is when everyone opts to make the same character. Consider a level 2 party composed of nothing but Blood Adept magician/strikers with The Excellent Prismatic Spray, Mudge's Localized Inferno, Lightning Strikes, and Fast Reactions. The party always goes first, opens up with a Potency-boosted Excellent Prismatic Spray, Lightning Strikes, and Mudge's Localized Inferno. They have just wiped out a considerable portion of the encounter before any enemy has acted. No rolls needed.

Strike!'s combat wholly crumbles in the face of same-y alpha striking.

>>51517481

It does seem to come up a strange amount. I try to give them the benefit of the doubt but the actual arguments involved tend to be very circular or fall apart under scrutiny.

It does seem like it's just a way of people trying to justify their preferences out of insecurity.

File: 37335e50dabaedf7e0b5e18750b19b83.jpg (934KB, 2000x2400px) Image search: [Google]

934KB, 2000x2400px

>>51517503

I have been trying to solve Strike!'s alpha-striking issue for a while now. The best I could manage was this solution: https://boards.fireden.net/tg/thread/48976085/#49017910

As an alternative to that hypothetical level 2 party, consider a level 1 party of nothing but Blood Adept magician/defenders with The Excellent Prismatic Spray, Mudge's Localized Inferno, and Fast Reactions. They likewise always go first, open up with a Potency-boosted Excellent Prismatic Spray, and then all Mark the same enemy.

The rules allow Marks to stack, thereby completely screwing over a multi-marked enemy. The only winning move for that enemy is to not do anything.

This is intentional; I have spoken to the author about how stupid it is for Marks to stack, yet they insisted on allowing this so as to support parties with more than one defender.

Personally, I think that Strike! would be better off strictly enforcing a limit of "any given role can appear once in any given party." It is a bit heavy-handed, but it encourages variety, as opposed to same-y spam tactics.

>>51517564

Would it be better if marks worked to make it fine to attack ANY marking guy? Rather than them stacking to prevent you attacking at all?

>>51517507
>>51517481
To me they usually say something amounting to "the GM can always fix it", which isn't wrong since the GM is allowed to do anything at all to the rules and playstyle as long as he checks it with his players. The problem with that obviously is that it's not the same game anymore.

>>51517597

It's also worth citing the Rule Zero/Oberoni Fallacy

https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Oberoni_Fallacy

>>51517607
Basically that's the argument people make when they claim that the rule system has no bearing on the game ergo ANY rule system can deliver a quality game, and also ergo that any rule system can deliver ANY game (since what is and is not quality varies widely from group to group). If any rule system can be made into returning any game, that obviously means you're just changing the ruleset until it's not even recognizable.

File: bea1e608fc3736620ad5201af0af2052.png (2MB, 1240x1754px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1240x1754px

>>51517594

No, because that would shift things in the other direction: additional defenders become redundant.

It is really best to just bite the metaphorical bullet and accept that Strike! works best when everyone in the party has a different role. Between blaster, controller, defender, leader, lurker, and striker, the players should be able to come to a compromise on what role each character should take.

>>51517737
Haven't been involved in this system but doesn't this sound like a balancing issue? If it's preferable in terms of power output to spam the exact same build over and over that sounds like the class design is flawed.

File: a0c79adbc981d39d192251dc5d61775d.jpg (116KB, 724x1023px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 724x1023px

>>51517784

It is indeed a balancing issue.

If there was an anti-alpha-striking mechanic built into the game (I have already proposed this: https://boards.fireden.net/tg/thread/48976085/#49017910 ), then maybe all-striker parties would be more balanced.

However, it is an extremely difficult to balance multiple defenders in a single party. They are either too weak or too strong. Not even 4e managed to balance this that well, and the eminent solution really does seem to be "only one defender per party."

>>51517507
>>51517597
What's with you two jerking each other off? Niggas trying to logic games?? I'm sure that will work out grandly for you.

>>51517961
?

>>51517182
>muh real power
Huh, I don't think you know what power is, anon...as long as all those billions of people keep forking out their money mindlessly, them people are NOT wielding power........they are dissipating it. Frittering it away. While the REAL power keeps them billions of people jumping at shadows and paying real money to feel fake safe.

>>51517996
Anon if people stopped buying the goods then there's literally nothing the company can do
In a market economy power always lies with the consumer, it's the reason why when you're looking for a job you're powerless, because you're trying to sell your labor and nobody is buying. Same shit.

>>51517961

Excuse me?

>>51518020
>Anon if people stopped buying the goods
>stopped buying the goods
>stopped buying
Your argument has fallen apart, anon. Who has the power? Seriously, who?

>>51518047
Bless you!

>>51518132
Customers anon.

>>51518155
But only if they 'stop buying' as previously posted. When will that happen? Seriously, when will people choose to use their power? It doesn't seem to be happening...at all. Anywhere. The only people on the earth NOT spending their money are the people who don't have any. Everyone else spends! Buying needful things they cannot live without. Forever.
where's the power?

>>51518179
Count the number of companies that have gone bankrupt and you have your answer anon. People have the power to withold their money from anyone they don't want to spend money on. Companies are the one begging YOU to buy their shit, not the other way around. Oh, certainly sometimes people look forward to the product, and then it'd be the power of the company to withold the product, but most of the time the consumer has power. Deals need agreement of both parties, so the side that has more ability to break off the deal has more power. It's why monopolies in vital industries are a problem because you stop having the power to break off the deal.
Consider what would happen if a yogurt manufacturer sold yogurt at 5000 dollars a pint. Are you really going to buy that? You're thus exerting your power, and he has to lower the price. On the other hand, if there's so many buyers that supply can't keep up, the company has the power. Supply can almost always keep up. The consumer holds the power in that case.

>>51508195
If your mechanics get to gameist, it detracts from immersion.
Otherwise, not really.

Beyond that, your mechanics should direct players to intended behavior (OSR's gp-to-xp and ultra-lethal combat, etc.). But even that's kosher.

>>51517503
Alright, you know this, and I know this, but I wanted him to dig in and try to discover it.

Alpha striking is always a really strong option, but I think you can build encounters around it. Just by splitting the encounter in two, having reinforcements arrive after the alpha-turn will create some tense situations, as well as things like enemies hiding behind cover/out of LoS (hence untargetables), or ambushes where the bloodwizards are sandwiched between two forces or enemies are right on top of them massively reducing the power of their AoOs (unless they want to blast themselves).

File: 460560ee06f7188bf2dd4bde63b06e78.jpg (1MB, 1000x1350px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1000x1350px

>>51519249

A non-alpha-strike-focused party in such a scenario will fare even worse than the alpha striking Blood Adepts.

The former party will be completely swamped with enemies they have no way of taking out rapidly, whereas the alpha strikers will be able to clear out the first wave with ruthless efficiency, such that by the time the second wave arrives, the first wave will be entirely eradicated.

>>51519478
>A non-alpha-strike-focused party in such a scenario will fare even worse than the alpha striking Blood Adepts.

I disagree. A non-alpha striking party could have a leader to reposition, a blaster to keep continually offing smaller enemies (and do so more precisely, without endangering allies), and a defender who can tank better than the self damaging bloodmages (who are also out of juice after two turns).

Alpha striking is real good, but in a situation where you need staying power, a balanced party will be more efficient and less risky.

File: d3df008e874b88d4578b2585b8672fcc.jpg (1MB, 1000x1364px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1000x1364px

>>51519539

Yes, a balanced party has significantly more options.

No, it cannot quite compete with raw alpha striking and same-y builds.

Let us take two of your sample scenarios above:

>ambushes where the bloodwizards are sandwiched between two forces
The Blood Adepts pick a side to bombard, and bombard that side. They have now taken care of half of the encounter.

>or enemies are right on top of them massively reducing the power of their AoOs (unless they want to blast themselves)
The Instant Repulsion all around, Lightning Strikes, Mudge's Localized Inferno.

>a defender who can tank better than the self damaging bloodmages (who are also out of juice after two turns).
I find this concept supremely laughable, because it fails to take into account that deleting enemies rapidly in the first two turns significantly improves the party's staying power by preventing enemies from taking actions in the first place.

I completely hate how effective alpha striking is in, well, Strike!

>>51519711
>The Blood Adepts pick a side to bombard, and bombard that side. They have now taken care of half of the encounter.

The concept here is that a balanced party with high enough damage could also take care of half the fight by burning some of their resources, but then would be better equipped to handle the other half.

>The Instant Repulsion all around, Lightning Strikes, Mudge's Localized Inferno.

Instant repulsion can miss though. It's at least a tense situation instead of foregone conclusion.

>I find this concept supremely laughable, because it fails to take into account that deleting enemies rapidly in the first two turns significantly improves the party's staying power by preventing enemies from taking actions in the first place.

I mean, this can be math'd out. The non-alpha striking party is still killing enemies, just at a lower rate, so you just need to check if the defense the leader/defender gives would make up for killing the extra monsters on turn 1 in this situation.

Anyway, this is all weirdly non-specific. It'd be best to set up sample scenarios and test those out. I'd probably be down for this (possibly doing it on /tg/ even)... if I wasn't at work.

Also, only tangentially related but I feel it'd be interesting if Magicians would maybe have 1 base damage at-wills. All of their stuff already has really, really good effects (instant repulsion is one of the best melee powers on what's essentially a long ranged class!), and having worse sustained options vs good burst options is par for course for the "wizardy" classes. Of course, I don't mean just changing it, but tweaking the other numbers/effects the class has a bit as well.

>>51517503
>the martial artist now being the weakest class in the game due to a lack of actual class features.

Wait, what happened here? I don't recall any MA changes.

File: 5caa96cbb5fd0f98d6c09c5985f1ca67.jpg (1MB, 1000x1333px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1000x1333px

>>51520081

>The concept here is that a balanced party with high enough damage could also take care of half the fight by burning some of their resources, but then would be better equipped to handle the other half.

The more balanced party cannot, however, near-instantly take out half of the encounter. They will thus be swamped in enemies.

The Blood Adepts will have the luxury of having taken out half of the encounter to start with.

>The non-alpha striking party is still killing enemies, just at a lower rate
A far lower rate, considering just how much everything adds up in the level 2 combo stated above.

>it'd be interesting if Magicians would maybe have 1 base damage at-wills
Magicians are supposed to have the most powerful encounter powers in the system. This is intentional, according to Mr. McGarva. This makes up for their modest class features. I see no reason to downgrade their at-will powers.

>Wait, what happened here? I don't recall any MA changes.
Many other classes were given an additional at-will power. The martial artist used to be one of the very few classes with three at-will powers, but now it lacks that advantage. At the moment, a duelist makes a much better melee specialist than a martial artist, and a duelist/defender is especially noteworthy due to Guessing Game spam, another one of Strike!'s most degenerate and monotonous yet brutally effective tactics.

>>51520329
>The more balanced party cannot, however, near-instantly take out half of the encounter. They will thus be swamped in enemies.

If you'll be around when I get home (7-8 hours from now) we can run a scenario I have in mind with alpha strikers first, balanced party second. Then, we can compare the number of strikes the parties got and possibly the number of action points used and see how well they compare.

>Magicians are supposed to have the most powerful encounter powers in the system. This is intentional, according to Mr. McGarva. This makes up for their modest class features. I see no reason to downgrade their at-will powers.

My reasoning is that their at-wills are also really good (having normal damage but pretty amazing effects for repulsion and prismatic spray), and also for some extra mechanical variance between classes.

An interesting exchange would be maybe allowing them to have 2 encounter powers/combat straight from level 1, putting even more emphasis on their encounter powers.

This could be limited to subclasses (say, star adept starts with 4 spells and can use 2 per encounter for less at-will damage, or the reverse, Blood adept would have 2 damage at-wills and 1 encounter power).

And I guess I just like to tinker and change things.

>Many other classes were given an additional at-will power. The martial artist used to be one of the very few classes with three at-will powers, but now it lacks that advantage. At the moment, a duelist makes a much better melee specialist than a martial artist, and a duelist/defender is especially noteworthy due to Guessing Game spam, another one of Strike!'s most degenerate and monotonous yet brutally effective tactics.

I think having the choice of 3 passive effects (since half of the stance is an active, the other half a passive) mitigates this somewhat, but I guess I understand the issue.

And yeah, guessing game with defender is stupid (though probably not as stupid as blitzer+area denial+defender).

File: 03a1197e7067864df92508bb9ba410a3.jpg (966KB, 1000x1500px) Image search: [Google]

966KB, 1000x1500px

>>51520544

>If you'll be around when I get home (7-8 hours from now)
I will not be.

>My reasoning is that their at-wills are also really good
I have spoken with Jim McGarva on this topic, and magicians' at-will powers are *supposed* to be no better than those of any other class. Liscato's Bountiful Lubrication's effect is supposed to be tier 1.5 under the logic that it is a 50/50 chance for a tier 3 status effect, and Margul's Toxic Missile is supposed to be a mirror of the necromancer's Deadly Poison. The Instant Repulsion is simply an outlier.

>And yeah, guessing game with defender is stupid (though probably not as stupid as blitzer+area denial+defender).
As I have mentioned in >>51517503, the new Area Denial is blatantly overpowered, and it does not even need a Blitzer or the defender role. Out of the box, Area Denial 2.0 is a ludicrous amount of soft control for an at-will power.

Area Denial's current state is my fault too. I had told Mr. McGarva to adjust the old Area Denial, which was too easily abused simply by placing an ally adjacent to an affected enemy. While he did fix that issue, he created a new one by expanding the power's area to an absurd 5×5 square. I suppose I should have been more specific.

>>51520612
>Area Denial's current state is my fault too

I would have preferred a damage nerf to the old one (it was 3 damage, right? Don't have the book on me), or possibly making it so it's not an attack at all, just a non-friendly zone you plop down (in which case the 5x5 may be justified).

I think it being a good combo with an ally standing there was a Good Thing(tm) since this is exactly the kind of combination play you want to encourage imo. It can also be disrupted in a myriad ways, like an enemy having a movement option not hindered by an ally next to him (two-square shift, teleport) or a different enemy pushing/distracting that ally.

File: 790d444ec587e8ccaf7599d00f1e7d22.png (434KB, 409x750px) Image search: [Google]

434KB, 409x750px

>>51520905

>I think it being a good combo with an ally standing there was a Good Thing(tm) since this is exactly the kind of combination play you want to encourage imo.

I personally disagree. Teamwork should be a little more involved than "target the enemy who just so happens to be next to an ally, especially when that enemy is probably being focus-fired on anyway."

This thread seems super vulnerable to odd tangents

>>51520984
Sure, I guess. It's really only one step removed from the combat example at the beginning of the chapter (the step where the Archer is a controller and moves the baddie next to the ally; although of course terrifying visage is a lot more benign).

As said, I'd have preferred different mechanics for it anyway, and making it more soft control focused than "guaranteed damage to a target" focused is not a bad goal, I just dislike how they went about it.

>>51517607
>>51517639
This is stupid on so many levels, and a great example of how most of 1d4chan is absolute shit.

>>51521661

Care to explain why?

>>51521711
A lot of that's been addressed earlier in this thread.

It's basically a given that if you're in a discussion, and that someone mentions the "oberoni fallacy", you're dealing with someone who is not here to discuss games as they are actually played, but to nitpick like a little bitch about insignificant details until you grow tired of talking with them.

If they go so far as to produce the 1d4chan link, congratulations, you're likely dealing with the guy who wrote that page and is hoping to provide his "fallacy" with an aura of legitimacy, when it's really just an empty argument.

The fallacy tries to pretend that anyone ever argues that there is a perfect game. Rather, people argue that certain flaws are not that significant. While the "pepperoni fallacy" addresses the pointless truism of "no game is perfect", it has absolutely no bearing on whether or not a particular flaw is of great or negligible importance, rendering it moot.

Basically, it's something a pretentious and argumentative fuckhead would bring up in hopes of further distracting you from any real discussion, and to try and steer it towards minor details that are easily ignored or remedied.

If you say "that's not really that important" and you hear someone cry "PEPPERONI FALLACY", you can feel free to copy and paste this and then proceed to ignore them, because you're dealing with someone who's clearly not willing to learn about games as they are actually played, and is just here to argue.

>>51521963

That... Doesn't actually seem related in any way to the argument the Oberoni Fallacy actually represents, though?

It's not about perfect games or discussing the magnitude of a flaw. It's about the action of dismissing a flaw out of hand because 'The GM can fix it'.

Discussion of how they can fix it, of the problems the flaw presents and the best ways to work around them, are good, and the fallacy as presented in no way opposes those.

It entirely focuses on rejecting the argument that a flaw does not matter because it can be ignored/worked around by very simple logic- If a flaw exists and has to be worked around or fixed, then it is still a flaw and is worthy of acknowledging as such.

>>51509571
>>>/reddit/

>>51510135
4e also had a gigantic bad-faith campaign against it

>>51522135

Hell no, that place is fucking garbage.

I mean, the chans are garbage too, but at least anonymous communication presents some advantages. The experience of only ever being taken at your word without established reputation or hierarchies influencing others is a real blessing. Entirely worth the trolling and other bullshit anonymity also invites.

>>51522163
Seconding this.

And on that note, thank fucking god the chans don't have up/down votes, even for singular posts. I have already noticed that (You) subtly influences my posting habits, I can't imagine what it'd be like with votes.

File: (you) have to go back.gif (348KB, 350x233px) Image search: [Google]

348KB, 350x233px

>>51522191
>I have already noticed that (You) subtly influences my posting habits
>already

>>51521963
Anon the entire point of the fallacy is that "just because the GM can fix it does not mean there isn't a problem".
If there was a ruleset based on D&D3.5 that made Meteor Swarm and Time Stop level 1 spells among other more minor tweaks, DMs would just completely ignore that specific change because it's retarded. The fact that everyone discards that rule doesn't somehow make that rule not retarded.

>>51522228
Meant "already" in the sense that (You) is a very minor thing, barely more than a more obvious notification, not as a short period of time spent here.

>>51522228
Not him but (you)s weren't always a thing.

File: AtlasYoung.jpg (90KB, 853x480px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 853x480px

>>51510135
4e wasn't do to bad mechanics, or unpopular changes. No neckbeard wants to be the one to say it:

You can't fucking holocaust your fanbase and expect them to pay for your dumb nerd shit.

Wizards went out of it's way to ban and alienate people for discussing 4e saying it was a rumor, then it wasn't a rumor, but "the data was too sensitive to be indulging on". What? It's a fucking D&D edition, not military launch codes...

The bullshit they fed people was so ridiculous and just so little shit they gave about the fanbase THAT's why 4e flopped. Not cause it was a miniature wargame.

And whitewolf is doing the same fucking thing but you all are bigger cucks now that take the ban dick much harder than you did back in early 2000s. Pre-9/11 trolls would doxx and brigade you if you banned them. Now they sigh and say "I deserve di's for being naughty..."

>>51522191

Attention economies are so fucking toxic. And the worst thing is nobody seems to have any idea how to deal with them. You can't get rid of them, because promoting things based on popularity is the best way to get more clicks and ad revenue, but the side effect of always amplifying the most extreme voices and leading to rampant polarisation no matter what the disagreement might be are very worrying, to the point of disturbing when you see how it interacts with peoples sense of detachment from being online and the self-righteousness of having a clear 'other' to vilify.

It's why I love anonymity. It doesn't make us nicer to each other, but it's literally impossible to hold a grudge (at least, without looking like one of the paranoid idiots who treat everyone who disagrees with them/makes the same arguments as the same person).

I always love the idea that I could be having a flaming, hateful row with someone in one thread while having a fun, creative discussion with them in another, and neither of us will ever know it happened. That we have to take people on their own terms rather than just branding them with a label- I mean, you can short term, but it's pretty much impossible to make it stick and even attempts to track a single continuous identity in one thread can fail extremely easily.

>>51522279

I'm kinda sceptical that this was a defining factor given that I've never heard it mentioned before, even in the heyday of the 3.5/4e edition war.

>>51522311
You haven't seen/heard "grapple the troll"?

I know there were other things, but that was the one I remember the most.

Also note that when you are calling a system shit for whatever reason, bringing out "And the ads called me dumb for liking my game!" makes you sound like a pussy, and nobody wants to sound like a pussy in an edition war.

>>51522111
>>51522243
I should have known better than to rise to your bait. Argumentative idiots will remain argumentative idiots, especially when hoping to defend a tool of theirs.

No one is saying the flaws don't exist, or that major flaws are not major flaws. The issue is that the pepperoni fallacy is only ever raised by people trying to pretend something ignorable or easily fixed demands attention.

It's like looking at a mansion and demanding everyone needs to discuss the ugly wallpaper in a small bathroom.

The pepperoni fallacy, at best, says something not even worth mentioning, the idea that there is no perfect game. At worst, and most commonly, it's brought up just to act like niggling details can't be sidestepped or are dramatically more important than they are.

>>51522359

>No one is saying the flaws don't exist

Except they do. Repeatedly. 'It isn't a problem because a GM can fix it' is a defence I see trotted out in defence of every fucking broken shitty game you can mention, and having a logical counterpoint to that you can reference is useful and valuable because it opens up discussion instead of shutting it down.

I'm not even sure what your complaint is.

>>51522359
Anon look at the fucking title of the thread then consider whether or not the "pepperoini fallacy" is applicable here
The point being made is that anyone who claims game design doesn't matter must by definition be engaging in the fallacy. Here's another way to word the fallacy - if the GM invokes Rule Zero to change the ruleset / game design, IT IS NO LONGER THE SAME RULESET / GAME DESIGN. Does this make more sense to your peabrain?

>>51522375
>someone disagreed with me on how important a flaw is!
>that means they claimed the game was perfect!

That's you. That's what you sound like.

>>51522375
By the fact that he found a new favorite "diss", keeps repeating it, and it fits with his established philosophy, I'm going to go ahead and file it under >>51506055

>>51522405

I... What?

>>51522428
You told someone a game they liked was shitty. They disagreed. You brought up a flaw in the game. They said it didn't matter. And that infuriated you, to the point where you decided that your little fallacy could command them to pay attention to you and your complaints.

That's the story, except you've decided that "it's not a big deal because the GM can easily fix it" translates to "it never was a flaw to begin with."

People are not going to pretend that the issues they don't care about matter if they don't actually matter to them, regardless of how much that upsets you.

>>51514388
>>The best games are built from the ground up to support their concept and premise effectively.
>Such systems turns to be versatile "works for a variety of game types" systems.

But that's fucking wrong, anon. Imagine a system designed for survival horror campaigns where resources and health are scarce, enemies get more and more powerful as you fight them, there is a significant death spiral, and any powerful move is bought in hit points or XP.
This system will probably do an excellent job at survival horror, but it will not work for your generic fantasy campaign, your post-scarcity scifi campaign or your magical girl campaign.

This guy >>51510354 mentioned the Angry GM, who actually has a good recent article about mechanics and how they may or not complement the theme. Check it out.

>>51522479

And now you're telling yourself strange stories as if you somehow can read my mind or predict my past? Which is extra stupid given the discussion of anonymity elsewhere in the thread.

I am just increasingly confused as to your thought processes, anon.

>>51522508
Those are easily adjusted changes.
Changing numbers is simple, and just a matter of scaling. Beyond that, it sound like fluff concerns and reskinning.

The big changes of a system revolve around core rules and mechanics. Switching between a more collaborative game where players spend points to alter aspects of the story to one where the GM has control of everything except the PCs decisions is a far more dramatic change than whether an enemy has 10 or 50 hp.

>>51522520
I'm simply extrapolating the truth. You're an argumentative sort who prefers to misdirect and redirect arguments (seeing as gow you use and defend the oberoni fallacy), so I spared us the round-a-bout so we could actually talk about the real issue.

What you don't like isn't people saying flaws don't exist, but them telling you that the flaws don't really matter.

>>51522619

And now you're making it extremely personal, and making judgements about my intentions and my character?

You are a very odd person anon. I'd prefer it if you actually engaged with the point and we could have a reasonable discussion, but given the thread that seems far too much to hope for.

>>51522520
I (and many other anons) ran these circles before.

Ignore him. He's either trolling, or terminally stupid.

>>51522575
Not him but something like Song of Swords is simply not going to cut it if you're playing a game where characters can and will retcon deaths, teleport ten thousand kilometers, or shatter realities with a snap of their finger, while something like WH40k is unlikely to work for low powered cyberpunk.

>>51522641
I see you plan on continuing the round-a-bout.

>>51510247
This actually makes tons of sense if you think about it

>>51522670
A lot of that sounds like scaling and reskinning. Some people have more difficulty with this than others, but they're still relatively modest changes compared to retooling Everyone is John for a WH40k game.

>>51522719

Scaling and reskinning does not work for particularly large shifts in genre or theme.

It might serve to roughly emulate it, but the core mechanics will still be opposed to the theme you're aiming for, meaning you're better off finding a system that supports that theme from the bottom up.

>>51522641
You seem to want to avoid that last point pretty hard. It really does sound like your issue isn't that people are denying the existence of flaws, but that they are dismissing flaws as less important than you think they are.

>>51522734
>Everyone is Emperor
>You are the amalgam of souls of the shamans, witchdoctors, priests, wizards, and all sorts of mystics who sacrificed themselves to became the Emperor

>>51522734
Scaling and reskinning does though. In fact, those are the major tools of most generic systems.

>>51522765

But that's the point. Scaling and reskinning are relatively shallow changes, they work for generic systems but if you're looking for a focused experience, or trying to adapt something, they aren't particularly useful tools because they do not change the core experience of the game.

>>51522719
>scaling and reskinning
Song of Swords has entire sections based on rolling dice to see where in the head you got hit and if you got brain damage for it. It doesn't do ability checks the same way as most other systems. It doesn't use any die but d10s. It lacks magic, spell-like abilities, special abilities, or the capability of handling beings like slimes or wraiths. You don't "attack", you choose like one of a thousand different "combat maneuvers" and have to roll to see if you can dodge it by sidestepping and counter with a stroke across the chest that leads to internal bleeding and organ rupture. Character creation literally does not work the same way. There are no classes, so on and so forth. It simply would not work for an archwraith wizard character without tossing half the system out the window.

>>51522806
Yeah, this. You CAN do it, but you'd need to tinker a lot and the end result may not even be in line with what you wanted.

I'm actually working on an SoS inspired game where spells are just another weapon; think Soulsborne spellcasting

>>51522375
Can you explain to me whether or not the difference between:
>'It isn't a problem because a GM can fix it'
and
>'It isn't a big problem because a GM can easily fix it'
Is really that significant? Because, the Oberoni Fallacy only addresses the former and is useless against the latter, while the latter effectively says the same thing as far as its use in a system discussion.

>>51523020

The distinction is that one closes discussion, and the other opens it.

The former is used as a way to shut down criticism- It isn't a problem so stop talking about it, refusing to acknowledge the flaw through sheer denial.

The latter is used to lead to interesting and useful discussion about how the flaw might be fixed, but implicitly acknowledges that the flaw does exist.

>>51523084
>The distinction is that one closes discussion, and the other opens it.
Both do the same thing. They say "That criticism is not important." No one says "'It isn't a big problem because a GM can easily fix it' because they want to discuss how to fix it.

The former, however, presents itself as an absolute so that it can have a fallacy written about it, while the other says effectively the same thing but isn't quite so easily dismissed.
In essence, the Oberoni fallacy is set up to address a strawman argument, a version of what is being said that is easier to tackle because absolutes are easy to take apart, and its actually been retooled to present the argument as a contradiction. And, while the Oberoni Fallacy addresses the strawman version, it fails to do anything for the actual heart and meat of the matter.

It's kind of like someone saying "That dog is not a big dog" and then someone coming up with an argument to address "That dog is not a dog."

>>51523212
No anon, the Oberoni fallacy is specifically addressing the first. It doesn't work on someone saying the small dog is not a big dog, because it can be a dog while being a small dog. But a small dog cannot be a small cat, because it is always a dog. The point is not that the problem is important, or unimportant. It could be a completely trivial problem that really comes down to personal preference or one that is so gamebreaking that it's become standard procedure for GMs to change.
The first version says "this isn't a flaw because I can fix it". Obviously untrue.
The second version says "this isn't a big problem and here is how you can fix it". This is a possibly true statement.
And the entire point of invoking that fallacy to begin with is that people who claim game design doesn't matter are fundamentally saying that 'if you change the system through Rule 0 it's still the same system'. They're saying that any percieved flaws in the system or any percieved unsuitable points in the system should just be rule zero'd out of existence or edited and it could still qualify as the same thing. By this logic no matter what the system is it will work perfectly under all circumstances even if changed beyond recognition. I could possibly play a game focusing on cybercrime with FATAL under this argument, which is obviously retarded.
Do you get why it was brought up?

>>51523317
>No anon, the Oberoni fallacy is specifically addressing the first.

So, it is useless, because the former can be replaced with the latter in a discussion without missing a beat.

>'if you change the system through Rule 0 it's still the same system'.

If this isn't true, then no one has ever played any systems. Everyone modifies or otherwise alters the game, even if it means choosing to use certain options or variants over others. It's still the same system, even if modifications have been made. It's still a Cadillac after you've added the fuzzy dice.

>They're saying that any percieved flaws in the system or any percieved unsuitable points in the system should just be rule zero'd out of existence or edited and it could still qualify as the same thing.

People are expected to change games. Most games not only encourage this, but provide tools to help people do so. To say that the only version of a system that can be allowed to be discussed is the RAW version already is a ridiculous statement, because the RAW version itself varies depending on what the GM is doing.

>By this logic no matter what the system is it will work perfectly under all circumstances even if changed beyond recognition.

While this is an extreme, it ultimately rings true. Though most people discuss making small changes to fix small problems, it is true that any system, even FATAL, can be changed to work perfectly for any game. While this would take some effort, it's not impossible, negating your hope of trying to establish some absolute law to prevent its attempt.

Ultimately, what you seem to be hoping to do is pin the discussion along avenues that demand that many minor criticisms be treated with undue reverence.

I'm not recommending that people alter FATAL to fit cybercrime games. That's a silly extreme. What I am saying is that the Oberoni Fallacy fails to serve any purpose beyond making someone add "big" and "easily" to their statement.

>>51523498
>So, it is useless, because the former can be replaced with the latter in a discussion without missing a beat.
It can't.

>If this isn't true, then no one has ever played any systems. Everyone modifies or otherwise alters the game, even if it means choosing to use certain options or variants over others. It's still the same system, even if modifications have been made. It's still a Cadillac after you've added the fuzzy dice.
Yes anon but it's not a cadillac anymore if you've gone and ripped out the engine or breaks or something and replaced it with something else. Someone talking about his Cadillac doesn't want to hear about your special snowflake Cadillac and it's implict that he's talking about the 'normal' Cadillac.

>While this is an extreme, it ultimately rings true. Though most people discuss making small changes to fix small problems, it is true that any system, even FATAL, can be changed to work perfectly for any game. While this would take some effort, it's not impossible, negating your hope of trying to establish some absolute law to prevent its attempt.
No anon, see >>51522734, >>51522806, >>51522834. If you changed FATAL to that point it would have damn near nothiing left of the original system. I could change FATAL to something that looks like SoS with a few whistles, but then I'm not playing FATAL anymore, I'm playing SoS with anal circumferences.

>What I am saying is that the Oberoni Fallacy fails to serve any purpose beyond making someone add "big" and "easily" to their statement.
Jesus fucking christ anon read the thread. The entire point of invoking that argument is that GAME DESIGN MATTERS. The mere fact that the GM is changing the motherfucking rules and system, aka the game design, to better suit his game PROVES this statement, because if it didn't matter then he wouldn't have to change the goddamn game design. Same with Oberoni - if you FIX a flaw, that means it was obviously not trivial since you put time in to fix it.

>>51523596
>Someone talking about his Cadillac doesn't want to hear about your special snowflake Cadillac and it's implict that he's talking about the 'normal' Cadillac.

Not really, especially when it's implicit that everyone modifies their Cadillac.

>I could change FATAL to something that looks like SoS with a few whistles, but then I'm not playing FATAL anymore, I'm playing SoS with anal circumferences.

You're not the one who gets to define whether a game is Modified Fatal or modified SoS, because either one may ultimately apply.

>The entire point of invoking that argument is that GAME DESIGN MATTERS

That's not an important statement, because the question isn't whether it "matters" but how much it matters, which varies. More importantly, bringing up the Oberoni Fallacy remains ridiculous and effectively useless in any discussion.

>if you FIX a flaw, that means it was obviously not trivial since you put time in to fix it.
It doesn't take much time to fix a perceived flaw. We're not adjusting the alignments of planets here. If HP's are too high in 4e and halving them fixes that issue, then that issue has been reduced to triviality.

>>51523670
>You're not the one who gets to define whether a game is Modified Fatal or modified SoS, because either one may ultimately apply.
Anon this makes the entire idea of systems utterly worthless and if you're going to pull this trick on me I have nothing more to say, next you'll tell me that D&D5e is just modified WH40k and AoS is just modified pf. Everything is a modified version of an empty pdf file. Shall we discuss the merits of the empty pdf file as a game system?

>That's not an important statement, because the question isn't whether it "matters" but how much it matters, which varies.
No anon. The question is if it matters or not. You may wish to read the OP before replying and also read the comment chain that explicitly states "yes, it matters and is not wholly irrelevant and here is why".

>More importantly, bringing up the Oberoni Fallacy remains ridiculous and effectively useless in any discussion.
...

>It doesn't take much time to fix a perceived flaw.
Completely and utterly irrelevant. Just becuase it doesn't take much effort to fix does not make it a trivial flaw. In fact if it were a truly trivial flaw you wouldn't fix it. A missing semicolon in a C program is trivial to fix but not a trivial flaw. Wrongly ordered explicit function declarations if there's a fuckton of them in a thousand header files is not a trivial thing to fix but a completely trivial flaw.

>We're not adjusting the alignments of planets here. If HP's are too high in 4e and halving them fixes that issue, then that issue has been reduced to triviality.
No, FIXING the issue has been reduced to triviality, and the mere fact that the issue is something you wish to fix implies that the issue exists, ergo there can be issues with game design, ergo game design is not irrelevant.

>>51523752
>Anon this makes the entire idea of systems utterly worthless

That's only if you take it to ridiculous extremes. If your arguments rely entirely on hyperbole, you've never had anything to say from the start.

>No anon. The question is if it matters or not.
Which is a pointless question, which I revealed to in the last post. There's no point in demanding the focus to be on whether or not it matters in an absolute, binary degree.

>No, FIXING the issue has been reduced to triviality

And the issue itself. Don't try to split hairs here just for the sake of argument.

>>51523838
>That's only if you take it to ridiculous extremes. If your arguments rely entirely on hyperbole, you've never had anything to say from the start.
You're the one who's saying that. You literally just told me that SoS with anal circumferences as a stat could be interpreted to be modified FATAL just as easily as modified SoS - and you're right, but this also means that WH40k is just modified pf - which is also right.

>Which is a pointless question, which I revealed to in the last post. There's no point in demanding the focus to be on whether or not it matters in an absolute, binary degree.
Anon the fucking OP question and the question people were addressing was the question of whether or not it mattered, absolutely. If you don't want to discuss the same shit and are simply here to 'split hairs' then stop.

>And the issue itself. Don't try to split hairs here just for the sake of argument.
So you're going to ignore my argument because you yourself have no argument and are just here to split hairs for the sake of argument. Got it.

>>51523870
>You're the one who's saying that.
You are the one bringing up ridiculous extremes.

>Anon the fucking OP question and the question people were addressing was the question of whether or not it mattered, absolutely.

Not at all, if you've actually read the thread.

>>51523870
I'm ignoring your "argument" because you genuinely think that it remains a big issue even though it was fixed easily. You must have a weird definition of big issue, because I prefer to use big issue for "things that actually matter."

I get it. You WANT it to matter, and you personally really, really think it does. But, you can't convince people it's a big deal if they don't see it as one, especially if it's fixed with relative ease.

>>51523979
>You are the one bringing up ridiculous extremes.
You're the one doing so. You literally said that it could be either FATAL or SoS. That's extreme. My extreme version was to show how rulesets matter, very clearly. A less extreme version, like changing Time Stop to last for 1+1d8 rounds instead of 1+1d4, is still changing the ruleset and therefore still changing the game design, albeit in a tiny way. Switching rulesets from pf to SoS, on the other hand, constitutes a major change, and will affect your gameplay and possible campaigns in a massive way.

>Not at all, if you've actually read the thread.
This is really rich considering you come in 50+ posts after the original replies in question that respond directly to the OP then tell me what I was talking about.

>I'm ignoring your "argument" because you genuinely think that it remains a big issue even though it was fixed easily. You must have a weird definition of big issue, because I prefer to use big issue for "things that actually matter."
No anon you literally cannot fucking read.
It doesn't matter how big of an issue it is. It doesn't matter how insignificant of an issue it is.
My argument hinges on the fact that an issue fucking exists.
Here's my train of logic. Your job is the find a breaking link.

A person tweaks or fixes part of a ruleset.
Ergo, this person belives his game would run better with this modified ruleset.
Ergo, the original ruleset would have made his game run less smoothly.
Ergo, differences between rulesets matter, whether massively or only in miniscule portions.
Ergo, game design "matters" as an absolute.
Can you find fault with any of this?

>>51524040
>You're the one doing so.

Nope. I was not the one to bring up that extreme.

>This is really rich considering you come in 50+ posts after the original replies in question that respond directly to the OP then tell me what I was talking about.

Except your reply was pointless, as has been explained.

>Can you find fault with any of this?
Right here.
>Ergo, this person belives his game would run better with this modified ruleset.
>Ergo, the original ruleset would have made his game run less smoothly.

If the original ruleset runs "smoothly", the changes they might be making might be to alter the game to suit their personal tastes. It has no bearing on the original quality of the game, or how "smoothly" it operates from the start, or whether it will run more of less smoothly from their tweak.

And, that's... what? Second and third statement down?

>>51524113
>Nope. I was not the one to bring up that extreme.
I quote: >>51523670
>You're not the one who gets to define whether a game is Modified Fatal or modified SoS, because either one may ultimately apply.
So nah, you're the one who did that. Oh and you avoided my argument again.


>Except your reply was pointless, as has been explained.
No, you're dismissing my reply as pointless because it does not address the question you have in your mind, which is neither the one in the OP nor the one I was answering. This is some form of reverse strawman you're pulling.

>Right here.
>If the original ruleset runs "smoothly", the changes they might be making might be to alter the game to suit their personal tastes. It has no bearing on the original quality of the game, or how "smoothly" it operates from the start, or whether it will run more of less smoothly from their tweak.
You're using hypotheticals. Yeah, maybe that's why he's changing it. But what if he's not? That's all that matters. As long as there is a percieved issue, or a percieved improvement to the running of the game, then the rest follows. ANY one instance proves the point, because to disprove an absolute like "it doesn't matter", you only need to find one instance where it matters, hence game design matters - otherwise, if it DIDN'T matter, even something as extreme as the change I proposed should MAKE NO DIFFERENCE. Trying to run D&D with FATAL rules should be perfectly fine if it didn't matter - it obviously does.
And at any rate your reasoning doesn't make sense. Personal preferences and personal tastes are literally the difference between a good game and a bad game sometimes. Changing it to be more fight-y is a personal preference and one the players may or may not welcome, but it will affect the campaign and player enjoyment in some way. Hence, it must matter.
What the fuck are you so reluctant to admit? You're saying that game design doesn't matter, full stop. Why bother with rulesets at all?

what the fuck is happening in this thread

Richard Petty.

If I cared enough, I'd dig up like 5 threads this exact same shit went down.

>>51524209
>So nah, you're the one who did that. Oh and you avoided my argument again.

Did you notice that was quoting someone?

>No, you're dismissing my reply as pointless

I'm dismissing it as pointless because the question OP asked was pointless. Whether it matters is less important than how much it matters, because it mattering is a given.

You're still trying to turn important questions into meaningless binary absolutes.

>You're using hypotheticals.

You can't pretend to set up a logical chain if it falls apart from the second step on.

>As long as there is a percieved issue, or a percieved improvement to the running of the game, then the rest follows

Not at all. You make a large leap in logic from "Ergo, the original ruleset would have made his game run less smoothly" and on, because you believe that tweaking a perceived issue would make the game run more smoothly, when that is not neccesarily the case. From there, you have it leaping to the differences between rulesets mattering, when nothing proves that, especially because the differences so far presented are only perceptual and can be dismissed as negligible.

Rulesets DO matter. Your argument, however, is terribly faulty and flawed, as if you've never taken a logic course before.

>>51524326
>Did you notice that was quoting someone?
You literally snipped off the first half of my statement and decided to ignore the rest.

>I'm dismissing it as pointless because the question OP asked was pointless. Whether it matters is less important than how much it matters, because it mattering is a given.
Then you're literally not talking about the same thing as me, and have been attacking my argument without understanding shit about it because you lack basic reading comprehension, and you have not provided platform for discussion either. How much it matters is utterly meaningless on the general level without providing specifc examples of changes.

>You're still trying to turn important questions into meaningless binary absolutes.
What important questions? You cannot ask a meaningful version of OPs question, because how much it matters is directly related to how big of a change it is. As it were, you didn't address >>51522734, >>51522806, >>51522834 either. One of those is me, and those directly address the question of 'how much' rulesets matter.

>You can't pretend to set up a logical chain if it falls apart from the second step on.
It doesn't fall apart.

>because you believe that tweaking a perceived issue would make the game run more smoothly, when that is not neccesarily the case
It doesn't matter if it's necessarily the case, it matters that the DM THINKS it is the case. Either he believes it makes it run more smoothly on a mechanical level (i.e. bugfixing, scaling, reskinning) or he believes it will appeal more to his players for personal preference reasons (i.e. focusing), which is another way of running smoothly. There's really no other reasons for changing rulesets to begin with. It necessarily runs more smoothly.

>only perceptual and can be dismissed as negligble
Anon ,what the fuck are you using the judge the effectiveness of your ruleset for your game, if not how well it's recieved by your players, and how well it's balanced for the setting?

>>51523752
>The question is if it matters or not.

But, that's not what the person who said the Oberoni Fallacy is stupid is talking about. It's essentially a separate discussion, explaining that the Oberoni Fallacy is basically useless, spurred by someone bringing it up. Also, to use it as an answer to the OP is effectively saying that the OP's question is likewise limited and hardly worth answering because it's centered around a yes-no question.

"Does it matter?" can be answered with "Yes" even if it only matters in a very trivial degree.

>>51524438
>"Does it matter?" can be answered with "Yes" even if it only matters in a very trivial degree.
My entire point is that it does matter. Some things literally do not matter. The color of your d20s probably doesn't fucking matter.

>basically useless
Fallacies are not meant to be applied, they're meant to point out a bad way of thinking.
In this case the idea is that "just because you can fix it doesn't mean it isn't broken", and honestly more useful for people developing systems like the Strike! lads up the thread, to keep in mind 'fixable' doesn't imply the lack of a problem, it actually implies the existences of one. The seriousness of that problem, and whether or not it's worth it to try fixing those problems, is entirely another discussion. The point is to get people to recognize that a flaw exists in the first place, which some developers are loathe to do and often say "look if you don't like it just change it" in defense. It's not meant to be used in an argument and never was presented as valid in an argument.

>hardly worth answering
But the question of 'how much does it matter' is so vague as to be meaningless. How much does WHAT matter? The setting? The weapons system? The combat? The skills? The skillchecks? Character creation? Classes? There's so much in a ruleset and so much shit that you can change that if you're asking 'how much does it matter' the answer ranges from 'decisive' to 'basically irrelevant'.

>>51524437
>You literally snipped off the first half of my statement

The relevant part.

>You cannot ask a meaningful version of OPs question, because how much it matters is directly related to how big of a change it is

So, you understand how to ask a meaningful version of OP's question, by asking "what makes the rule sets matter?" rather than "does it matter?"

>It doesn't fall apart.
I already explained how. You can't say one thing leads into another if it doesn't necessarily lead into it, and then take leaps depending on value judgements in order to pretend that there is a direct connection.

>Anon ,what the fuck are you using the judge the effectiveness of your ruleset for your game
If you say doubling 4e's HP improves your games by making the battles faster, you have committed an error, regardless of what you perceive. An extreme example, but it seems like you need something like that at the moment.

>>51524500
>The color of your d20s probably doesn't fucking matter.

They alter how much light they absorb, changing their temperature, and ultimately changing their molecular structure to some degree, especially because they are heated unevenly, typically from light from an upward angle.
The colors also influence people's feelings towards them, making them even more or less inclined to feel favorable to them, which can influence whether or not they want to roll them.

Basically, you can say anything matters if you're talking about a binary yes-no answer. Hence, why you needed to include "probably" in your statement.

>The point is to get people to recognize that a flaw exists in the first place, which some developers are loathe to do and often say "look if you don't like it just change it" in defense.

This is a strawman.
If the Oberoni Fallacy only exists in regards to strawmen, then it is pointless.

>>51524520
>The relevant part.
You are the one who came into a discussion. You do not decide the relevant parts of the discussion by steering it around. You claim you didn't say something, avoiding my statement that shows how you did, You then ignore my comparison between major, minor, and extreme changes meant to illustrate how they all constitute a change in the game design and experience. You are blatantly ignoring relevant points and arguments that you have no idea how to address and dismissing them as irrelevant.

>So, you understand how to ask a meaningful version of OP's question, by asking "what makes the rule sets matter?" rather than "does it matter?"
Nigger that was not the question I was addressing, so you might want to fuck off.

>I already explained how. You can't say one thing leads into another if it doesn't necessarily lead into it, and then take leaps depending on value judgements in order to pretend that there is a direct connection.
It does necessarily lead into it. If a DM changes a game's ruleset then he believes it to improve the game he's running, unless he's an epic troll trying to ruin everyone's day. Whether or not it actually improves the game, it will affect the experience of the game. Therefore it must matter.

>If you say doubling 4e's HP improves your games by making the battles faster, you have committed an error, regardless of what you perceive.
It doesn't matter how it changes the game, as long as it changes it. In this example doubling HP would make the battles slower, which might be an improvement to some insane players, and probably a detriment to everyone else. This changes the game experience and hence affects it. I don't see the problem.

>An extreme example, but it seems like you need something like that at the moment.
Just like you ignored the ones I provided you I suppose? Let's turn it around - will a game run in FATAL feel the same as one run in SoS, AoS, or D&D4e? Can you honestly say it will?

>>51508195

>Does game design matter in RPGs?

Yes. Story aside, you and the other players are together to play a game. To that end, it should be fun, in the same way any tabletop boardgame (clue, catan, ect) should be at minimum.

>How significant is the system you're using for the experience?

Significant, as it is the underlying mechanical resolution method. Let's not make bones about it here, roleplaying games are about conflict. That may not always be violent conflict, but it can be social conflict or political conflict or even religious conflict, but at the end of the day, we play games because there's some sort of thing that (to our characters) is to be won or lost. To that end, mechanical resolution is going to be used a *lot*, and the system in play has a huge effect on how that is resolved.

>How big a deal are the flaws a system might possess?

Every system has major flaws, but that's normal for any game. Unlike most, GMs have control over the setting and how rules are used, and are fully within their right to ask players to reign in/not abuse loopholes, and patch others as their game needs. If it's playable, it can be played, but a more stable system is easier on the GM.

>Does the GMs ability to fix things via rule zero hold a much larger sway than design itself?

Despite what I just said, actually no. The GM's ability to exercise rule zero is akin to a patch/update/expansion for a videogame. He's there to fix bugs and make the game enjoyable and playable for everyone, and maybe add houserules/an alternate setting while he's at it. Yet despite that, the core of the game is the game itself. You can't patch a game that doesn't exist, it is in itself most of the pitch you give your players. When you hear "Dungeons and Dragons" or "Exalted" or maybe "Anima" you know what you're getting into and what to expect. This is the root of why players prefer systems, because they enjoy playing with the mechanics or setting.

>>51524575
>hence why you needed to include probably in your statement
What's your point?

>This is a strawman.
How the fuck is it a strawman? The existence of the fallacy is a warning against commiting the fallacy. It is empathetically NOT an argument against people committing the fallacy due to the fallacy fallacy. Just because I call someone an asshole and commit ad homenim doesn't invalidate the rest of a statement, but ad homenim itself is still a fallacy.
The point of the Oberoni Fallacy is to show that you should be mindful of possible flaws in your rulesystem and not simply say 'well it's easily fixed so it's obviously not a flaw' without considering the flaw itself. It's to make sure you notice it exists. Whether or not you want to fix it is another discussion.

>>51524500
>My entire point is that it does matter.

The entire question is about how much it matters. If you want to settle for the absolute answer, that's barely even a question.

>It's not meant to be used in an argument

So, we agree that trying to claim someone is committing the Oberoni Fallacy in an actual argument is pointless? I think that's the central idea that's trying to be expressed here.

>>51524621
>How the fuck is it a strawman?

Present to me an instance where some developer said "the flaw does not exist because if you don't like it you can change it." At best, you might find someone saying something to the extent of "the flaw is not important, because if you don't like it, you can change it", which is not committing the Oberoni Fallacy because that only applies to the absolutes of saying the flaw does not exist.

>>51524631
>The entire question is about how much it matters.
Which was never the question I was addressing, and which you've repeatedly failed to address when I showed you possible hooks for how much it matters.

>If you want to settle for the absolute answer, that's barely even a question.
Read the original two posts you quoted and show me where it was presented as a 'real question'.

>So, we agree that trying to claim someone is committing the Oberoni Fallacy in an actual argument is pointless?
Did you see anywhere me advocating it as a method of argument? In fact do you think any argument based in the existence of any fallacy makes sense? Because I sure don't. It, however, is not pointess on its own, because as I said it exists so people who are designing a setting remain open to thinking about and mindful of flaws in their game, especially minor ones, independent of whether or not they are relevant enough to be fixed.

>>51524672
That's not what a strawman is. A strawman is arguing against someone using a simplified argument they never presented which sounds similar to an argument they did present. You cannot use a strawman if you're not using it in an argument, and you cannot use fallacies in an argument, period.

>>51524631
>trying to claim someone is committing the Oberoni Fallacy in an actual argument is pointless
not him but i think it's useful if the person is denying flaws exist because the flaws aren't a big deal, since he'd actually be committing the fallacy
just my two cents

>>51524698
You're arguing about nothing then. The idea is that the calling someone out on committing the Oberoni Fallacy only applies to strawmen arguments. While it works against "the flaw does not exist because if you don't like it you can change it" it is absolutely useless against "the flaw is not important, because if you don't like it, you can change it."

No one is arguing that "the flaw does not exist because if you don't like it you can change it." That can't even be argued.
But, simply moving away from absolutes renders it a very valid statement, with "the flaw is not important, because if you don't like it, you can change it."

That's enough to render calling out the Oberoni Fallacy ineffectual and purposeless, because it only functions in regards to absolutes.

> A strawman is arguing against someone using a simplified argument they never presented which sounds similar to an argument they did present.

The typical moment when the Oberoni Fallacy would be brought up. If someone says "the flaw is not important," the only way to address it with the Oberoni Fallacy is to change it to "the flaw does not exist."

You bringing it up in the instance to address the largely purposeless OP question is not what's really being discussed here anymore, but rather the pointlessness and proclivity for misuse and strawmanning that goes into the named fallacy.

>>51524832

>No one is arguing that "the flaw does not exist because if you don't like it you can change it." That can't even be argued.

Except people try. All the fucking time.

They're idiots, yes, but it's useful to have a succinct proof of why they're idiots on tap.

>>51524832
>No one is arguing that "the flaw does not exist because if you don't like it you can change it." That can't even be argued.
The point is that people do argue about it holy shit read the fucking thread, the entire reason someone posted Pepperoni is because someone else said he frequently has run-ins with people claiming it does not matter, at all.

>>51524742
>not him but i think it's useful if the person is denying flaws exist because the flaws aren't a big deal

Pointing out that he should be saying that the flaws are not a big deal rather than not existing makes sense then, rather than simply telling them that they do in fact exist. The latter seems to imply that the flaws existing makes them a big deal, which is not necessarily the case.

The Oberoni business only does the latter, saying "flaws that exist exist", which is ultimately pointless and inconsequential, when the real question is "how much do those flaws matter?"

>>51524832

>largely purposeless OP question

OP here. Given that I posted the question with the intent on generating discussion of traditional games, I think it's been pretty successful in its purpose.

It's the kind of question where the discussion that can occur based on it is significantly more interesting than any particular answer you could give.

Although some of the later questions were legitimate curiosity on my part, wondering what the 'System doesn't matter' people actually expected game designers to do.

File: image.jpg (190KB, 610x878px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 610x878px

>>51524882
>which is ultimately pointless and inconsequential
yeah but not if the guy it's addressed to insists they don't exist which is kind of the whole point, its something to try starting discussion when the other guy doesnt seem interested in discussion

>>51524842
Then the proper response is to say "you mean it is unimportant, rather than it not existing."

It's meaningless to simply say "Ah ha! You said it does not exist when it does exist!" which is all that calling out the Oberoni fallacy does.

>>51524932
If you're trying to start a discussion on an inconsequential point that the other person believes is inconsequential, telling them they need to listen to your point because otherwise they are committing some kind of fallacy is just bad form.

>>51524832
>That can't even be argued.
You're implicitly invoking the Oberoni fallacy right here, because to you it's such an obvious statement that it seems pointless to even point out. The entire point of the fallacy is that some people DON'T think it's a fallacy and will literally use it as an argument.
I mean, most reasonable people will probably agree that calling someone a commie does not magically invalidate their arguments or stances on capitalistic economies and their failures - but that's because most people recognize that the ad homenim fallacy is just that, a fallacy. People who do not recognize it will attempt to use it as a valid argument. "Oh", you say, "that's foolish and impossible" - except many people are perfectly foolish.
In a sense the fact that you argue that Oberoni is pointless proves that you will never fall victim to Oberoni. You find it so obvious that pointing it out sounds stupid and can't concieve of someone not understanding this.

>>51524935
The oberoni fallacy implies that line of thought. All it says is that "just because it's fixable doesn't mean it doesn't exist". Valid arguments are "yeah it exists and here's how to fix it", "yeah it exists but it's unfixable / irrelevant", or "no it doesn't exist because of this reason". "It doesn't exist because here's how to fix it" is not valid, and that's all Oberoni says - but that's sonetimes necessary to explicitly point out.

>>51524963
like not really tho
like saying that theyre inconsequential instead of nonextant is kind of meaningless sure but saying something is flawless to shut down all discussion is in bad form
usually people apply it when someone else comes into a thread like an edition war and goes hurr it doesnt matter because just change it lel

>>51524853
If someone says it does not matter, they're not saying the flaw does not absolutely exist or that it does not matter to someone in some degree. It's them saying "it does not matter that much to me."

That's basically what it comes down to. If the reason it doesn't matter much to them is because they can change it easily, then that's a perfectly valid reason for as to why it's not a particularly important topic of discussion.

>>51525046
Anon, anon, anon. Read. The. Thread.
>I have literally argued against this multiple times on /tg/. Not even being hyperbolic, it's not like they were saying it's not a big deal or something, people will argue that the way a game is designed is literally and wholly irrelevant to how it is played or how well it accomplishes its design goals.
>literally and wholly irrelevant to howit is played
>To me they usually say something amounting to "the GM can always fix it"
>the GM can always fix it
Are you really defending this?

>>51524969
>The entire point of the fallacy is that some people DON'T think it's a fallacy and will literally use it as an argument.

Do these strawmen exist?

It sounds like what they mean to say is "it's not important" rather than "it doesn't exist." In a discussion, they are both effectively the same thing (they former is not an invitation to discuss the matter any further than the latter), and only the latter is the Oberoni fallacy.

>usually people apply it when someone else comes into a thread like an edition war and goes hurr it doesnt matter because just change it lel

Saying it doesn't matter is not committing the Oberoni fallacy. Saying it doesn't exist is, and to say that someone saying something isn't important is also saying it doesn't exist is turning their argument into a strawman version.

Even is someone is terribly wrong, and saying a giant problem isn't a big deal, they are not committing the Oberoni fallacy, because the Oberoni Fallacy only works in regards to the flaw not existing, rather than it not being important.

That makes calling out the Oberoni Fallacy ultimately useless.

>>51525129
>Do these strawmen exist?
Yes anon. In fact people posted Oberoni in response to someone else claiming that he had discussions with these people.

>it's not important rather than it doesn't exist
Both have been said before. The first is far more common, but the mere fact someoen wasted time and energy writing up Oberoni kind of implies that he got fucking tired of saying the same thing over and over. And hell, I've seen them myself.

>>51525087
I don't defend strawmen.

But, if a person is arguing something using the absolutes of literally and wholly, then the error is simply that. There is no reason to come up with a specific term for a common error.

>To me they usually say something amounting to "the GM can always fix it"
Which, unfortunately for you, is true. You are then forced to argue whether or not it's a big deal to fix it, and for that's so far into the realm of subjectivity you may ultimately have to come to terms with the idea that some people may like games different than the ones you do.

I understand what you're hoping for is objectivity, perhaps for some noble ideal like progressive discussion rather than simply hoping for tools to shout people down in shitposting edition war threads, but system design is unfortunately steeped in subjectivity, including the exact amount of whether or not the RAW matters.

>>51525197
The fact is that writing it up doesn't change it being largely useless, because the moment you whip it out and say "But that flaw DOES exist!" than the immediate response can simply be "Yes, but it does not matter that much."

Demanding people to treat a flaw as significant, solely because it exists, doesn't really work.

>>51525253

Are you actually missing the point or just being purposefully obtuse?

>>51525221
>I don't defend strawmen.
>hurr these people who hurt my argument surely don't exist despite people testifying to have seen and fucking talked to them before they're just strawmen or everyone but me is stupid and just misunderstood them :^))))))))
Simply epic.

>then the error is simply that
Absolutes can be useful and are not always incorrect to use in the first place. The Oberoni fallacy is simply shorthand so you can refer someone to one of the more common flaws. Are you going to say the ad hominem fallacy is also pointless because you don't need special term for what amounts to a special form of "not an argument"?

>Which, unfortunately for you, is true
And the point is that just because the GM can fix it doesn't mean there isn't a problem. These people don't admit there's a problem and wait for the GM to fix it. These people deny there is a problem in the first place, major or otherwise. That's why you point out that this is a problem. They claim things to be flawless because it's easily fixable, and therefore perfect or better than everything else.

>I understand what you're hoping for is objectivity, perhaps for some noble ideal like progressive discussion rather than simply hoping for tools to shout people down in shitposting edition war threads, but system design is unfortunately steeped in subjectivity, including the exact amount of whether or not the RAW matters.
What the fuck are you even talking about? I don't hope for anything except perhaps to go to fucking sleep after this largely pointless exercise in autism.

>>51525253
>Demanding people to treat a flaw as significant, solely because it exists, doesn't really work.
As I said you're obviously so ingrained in the obviousness of the idea that you cannot conceptualize a person who does not find it obvious. The entire point of the fallacy is to draw attention to the existence of a flaw. That's it. Nobody uses it for anything else.

>>51525253
>Demanding people to treat a flaw as significant
Can you find this statement in the text of the Oberoni fallacy

>>51525253
>the moment you whip it out and say "But that flaw DOES exist!" than the immediate response can simply be "Yes, but it does not matter that much."
anyone you can actually use the pepperoni on is going to respond "nuh-uh", not "yeah but it doesnt matter"

>>51525277
Let's illustrate.

1. "Flaw exists! I condemn this game."
1. "The flaw does not exist, if you can change it"
2. "Ah ha! The Oberoni Fallacy!"
3. "Allow me to remedy my statement. "The flaw is not important, if you can change it easily."
4. "Aw shucks. I guess I can't condemn this game."

What's left to do?

>>51525330
What is the purpose of calling out the fallacy then? To say "flaw exists" is meaningless if the response is "but the flaw is unimportant."

>>51525343
If you're "using the pepperoni" on someone in hopes that they don't reply with simply "it doesn't matter", you're basically just hoping to pretend that the mere existence of a flaw is enough to make it matter.

That makes it a particularly disgusting and dishonest method of arguing.

>>51525356

>1. "Flaw exists! I condemn this game."

No? Acknowledging flaws exist isn't a condemnation of a game, it's just part of a full and honest analysis. If a flaw is large or severe enough it can be a reason to condemn it, but a lot of the time it's just something to discuss.

>3. "Allow me to remedy my statement. "The flaw is not important, if you can change it easily."

This line here is the real flaw in your understanding.

If they change their tack and acknowledge the flaw exists? The fallacy has served its purpose, moving the conversation on to the more useful topic of discussing how flaws may be fixed and their relative impact on the system.

But the vast majority of the time? The response is denial, anger or some such. At which point you can safely move the conversation on because the other party has proven themselves incapable of rationality. It's not an ideal outcome, but it lets you avoid wasting time debating with idiots.

>>51525356
Because the Oberoni fallacy is not used to condemn a game. This is how it actually goes.

0. [etc. discussion about a system]
1. "Flaw A exists."
1. "Flaw A does not exist, you can change it".
2. "Pepperoni."
2. "I'm sorry, Flaw A exists, but it can be fixed in this manner" / "I'm sorry, Flaw A exists and is major" / "I disagree, Flaw A doesn't exist if you carefully reread the rules".
3. "I think that there are other ways to fix this flaw / I disagree with your way of fixing it / I believe the flaw exists but is not major / I think the flaw exists and is major but there are other reasons why it is major / I disagree, Flaw A exists even after rereading the rules"
3. [continue]

>>51525377
>>51525410
Are you two actually this slow? Of course it's not meaningless. If the flaw exists then you can discuss the flaw. If the flaw is insisted to simply not exist period then you can't discuss it.
It doesn't matter if they think it's significant or not. The mere fact they have admitted the flaw exists means its significance is now up for discussion. This fallacy exists because there are people who will refuse to discuss a flaw because to them it literally doesn't exist full stop. If they claim it's insignificant for whatever reason you can discuss with them the reaosns you believe it is in fact significant or insignificant. Just because the DM can change it doesn't mean there's no merit to discussing the severity of the flaws and possible ways to fix it, or possible ways of interpreting the rules so it wouldn't exist to begin with, or indeed ways of exploiting it.
The Oberoni Fallacy exists so we can move onto your "meaningful questions", instead of people ignoring those questions because there is zero significance to a nonextant flaw.

>particularly disgusting and dishonest method of arguing
You're disgusting and dishonest. You've constructed a strawman stemming solely from your refusal to understand what the fallacy exists for.

>>51525377
>To say "flaw exists" is meaningless if the response is "but the flaw is unimportant."

No, because that opens up debate.

For example, that a super popular game that people only hate, because it's the hip thing to hate popular things, the moment you accept that it may have flaws, we can start discussing the depths of the flaws and compare it to other games, it's predecessors and successors.

Only if you were interested in a discussion, of course. If you keep saying "flaws matter too little to even discuss, because they can be just fixed" that's, and refuse to acknowledge them any more than that, you are indeed correct that the conversation is still stuck. I can assure you, I know this feeling too well.

>>51525441
>If they change their tack and acknowledge the flaw exists? The fallacy has served its purpose, moving the conversation on to the more useful topic of discussing how flaws may be fixed and their relative impact on the system.

Not at all, because they're not saying "Flaw is important, let's discuss how to fix it!", they're saying "Flaw is not important, it's easily fixed, let us move on."

To persist with "No, Flaw IS important, I do not care if it is easily fixed" is basically just opening up for the subjective response of "Nuh uh", which, flatly, is often very appropriate, considering the inherent subjectivity of people's tastes.

If you "use the pepperoni" on someone, and they reply with outrage, that's not really far from being appropriate, because you're trying to pretend that mere existence of a flaw is enough to command attention of a discussion to it, while pretentiously pretending your argument has clout because it has a name and a 1d4chan wiki page. While they may not be privy to the simple response of "The flaw is not important, if you can change it easily," I think an update to that wiki page would put them on equal footing, with something as simple as "the existence of a flaw, however, does not imply that it is of any great significance, and a flaw being easily remedied is often enough to render it a moot point."

>>51525498
>Because the Oberoni fallacy is not used to condemn a game.

>>51522375
>Except they do. Repeatedly. 'It isn't a problem because a GM can fix it' is a defence I see trotted out in defence of every fucking broken shitty game you can mention,

>>51525595
Are you being purposefuly obtuse?

>Not at all, because they're not saying "Flaw is important, let's discuss how to fix it!", they're saying "Flaw is not important, it's easily fixed, let us move on."
It is IRRELEVANT how important it is. The only relevant point is whether or not it exists to begin with. IF someone acknowledges it exists, then it means discussion has become possible, instead of impossible. Maybe you're right. Maybe they don't want to discuss it. But what if they're more open to discussion or want to defend their stance more in depth?

>considering the inherent subjectivity of people's tastes.
And at the very least we can begin discussing those subjective tastes instead of a flat "lol no". We can discuss why I think it's important, perhaps pointing out broken areas that you didn't notice - or that you noticed, and realized workarounds for, thus changing my opinion of the rule.

>because you're trying to pretend that mere existence of a flaw is enough to command attention of a discussion to it
It is enough to MERIT a discussion. Whether or not people are actually interested in discussing it after acknowledging it exists is something else entirely, and not the subject of the pepperoni.

>has clout
You're the one throwing a bitchfit precisely BECAUSE it has a name. I somehow doubt you'd care so much if it had neither the wiki page nor the name and was just copy-pasted every time. This is some sort of reverse attack on credibility fallacy in action here.

>an update to that wiki page
The content of the wiki page is entirely irrelevant, you're changing the discussion. Stay on track.

>>51525618
The Oberoni fallacy there is not a condemnation of the game. It's a way to crack open discussion through the armor of >Rule Zero, so that one may proceed to tear apart the shittiness of the game by pointing out the myriad flaws that MAKE it shitty. Oberoni by itself doesn't prove shit about how severe the flaws are and was never used to.

And yeah it's honestly too fucking late for me to be up arguing about inconsequential bullshit and I have the feeling I've been baited really hard
See you

>>51525752
>It is enough to MERIT a discussion.

It is not enough to merit control of a discussion. If you want to demand that people pay attention to a point they consider unimportant, then they are absolutely free to refuse to do so if they genuinely think it is unimportant.

Citing the Oberoni Fallacy is not used to open up discussions, it is employed largely as >>51525343 believes it can be used. A way to steer the conversation to focus on insignificant details under the pretense that a flaw existing means it is important.

>>51525927
Are there even flaws that are important and worth to discuss?

>>51525953
Yes.
Are there flaws that are unimportant?

>>51525927
im the guy you said believes it can be used
no fuck you stop puttng words in my mouth
the way you use it is to try starting discussion
they can refuse to discuss things but the entire point is to hope they want to discuss it
you have no idea what youre talking about and its obvious so just stop

>>51525965
>Yes
Doesn't that mean that it's possible pointing out the flaw is a valid way to open discussion then?

>>51525965
Yes.

What are some flaws that important?

>>51525927
>It is not enough to merit control of a discussion
People can ignore him and say I don't want to discuss it but that doesn't mean they will

>>51525997
If the person believes it is unimportant to the point of saying it is nonexistent, why, oh why, do you think having them admit that the flaw exists will then convince them that the flaw is important enough to warrant discussion?

Do you sort of understand what I mean about people using this to try a press people into one-sided discussions? Them saying "it doesn't exist" should be the signal that no, they aren't interested in discussing the flaw, because its clear that they believe it to be a moot point.

I think the issues is that you sort of see these discussions like a game. If you've cornered them to the point where you've gotten them to admit that its moot because the GM can change it, you feel like you're inches away from some sort of important victory. But, getting them to admit that its moot because the GM can change it doesn't really change it from being a moot point.

People here really are looking to try and condemn games, hoping for objective ways to do so. But, games are largely defined by subjectivity, making the attempt a very neurotic point.

Game discussions on /tg/ shouldn't be these heated, violent debates where everyone is trying to prove objective superiority of their games. Respecting subjectivity is important to understanding games, and respecting people's opinions is important for that.

Now, if someone believes a criticism is important, it's also important to respect that and to entertain that idea, but not to the point where you are treating molehills like mountains, or entertaining the idea that simply because a flaw exists that means its important.

>>51522654
Yeah, this is Richard Petty. Take notes, kids.

>>51527592
You're talking about multiple people here.

>>51527706
[Spoiler] You moron. Don't reply to that weirdo. [Spoiler]

>>51527706
Constantly screeching its not a problem because its minor is a textbook case of his actions.

Or trying to claim that "I don't have a problem with it, so you're trying to blow up something minor!"

The only one he hasn't used yet is 'Its popular, so you're wrong!'

Its one dude. Its fucking Richard Petty.

>>51527744
You did spoiler tags wrong!

>>51527744
I had a vague feeling there was a crazy guy in this discussion. I didn't realize it's a guy who thinks there's only two people on /tg/.

>>51524229
itt: idiots who took the idiots' bait
also: no one here seems to realize the obaloney fallacy is in fact fallacious.
Some mouth-breathing retard is sure getting a lot of (You)s today.

>>51518236
You are fresh out of economics class - that's great! But unfortunately they didn't teach you about reality.......
You yourself hint at it:
>On the other hand, if there's so many buyers that supply can't keep up, the company has the power
But then you immediately drop it. Count for yourself the number of buyers there are in the world; then count the number of suppliers; THEN tell me: who has the power?
And remember:
>On the other hand, if there's so many buyers that supply can't keep up, the company has the power

Bump for any actual discussion of game design and mechanics?

>>51530835
Looks like the troll went home...

>>51533301
No, you're still here, apparently.

I tuned out during the troll war, but has it been mentioned yet that there are different kinds of balance?

The main argument against balance in this thread has been that it requires removing mechanical diversity. While that rings true if your concept of balance is having everyone be able to contribute equally at any point of the game, I'd say that such a balance is undesirable to begin with.

A more useful concept is that of spotlight balance: Everybody gets their chance to shine. All that requires is niche protection. If the fighter fights, the thief sneaks, the cleric heals, the wizard does weird shit and all of that feels equally important/useful, you won't get any complaints about balance. Everyone gets to contribute equally over the course of a session.

Another interesting thing to note is the (somewhat less common but still frequent enough) argument that in, for instance, 3.5, wizards are fine because they start off weak and only become really powerful in higher levels. It works in MOBAs, right?
Well, the crucial difference is that the power curve of a MOBA only lasts for about an hour before it resets. If you tie that power curve to a levelling system made for campaigns spanning months, you either have to wait a long time before you reach the useful part of your curve or you sit around twiddling your thumbs for the latter part of the campaign. If said power curve was instead constrained to a single session, it would again result in spotlight balance: Everyone has their high/time to shine.

>>51535267

Spotlight balance works better in some systems than others, though.

In something like Shadowrun, everyone has a very distinct role and leveraging peoples skill sets to get the job done is key.

D&D is less apt for that, since fantasy adventurers generally work together as a team, and even if one person might take prominence in a scene other people will generally expect to be able to contribute to some degree.

And I do get your MobA example, but it's worth mentioning that 3.PF casters don't even start weak.

>>51537208
It's amusing how a shitty idea (linear warrior / quadratic wizard) works well in a different medium.

(Also worth noting how it's amusing that in most mobas I played where this is a thing, the roles are reversed, and casters have better early game, while the stacking of equipment makes the fighter types spiral out of control in the end game).

>>51535267

For D&D, as an example, I want balance to mean that everyone has an equal ability to contribute in and out of combat. That doesn't mean everyone needs to contribute the same way or that some situations might rely more on one party members abilities than another, just that everyone has something they can do which is enjoyable for the player and effective in the system.

It's why I dislike 'Fighter' as a concept. Only being able to contribute in combat isn't interesting. Giving fighters and other martial classes more and better out of combat utility is the key balance point I really wish D&D achieved. Even 4e, for all its vaunted balance, failed pretty hard at that one.

>>51537415
Thing is how could you achieve that? There doesn't seem to be any sensible way to tie fighter power to out-of-combat situations
Like, I could see Monks having some sort of knockoff druid powers or having extra knowledge stats because of muh inner enlightenment. Sure. That's sensible enough. You might even be able to make Wisdom more important for persuasion and stuff. But can you really do anything for slash slashing man outside of combat?
Wizards are good outside of combat because their spells are boundless, that's just how magic works, Prestidigitation alone is probably worth more than a warrior outside of combat.

>>51539799

I think there's plenty of room for it.

Treat 'Fighter' as a professional soldier. Soldiers have a very broad skillset- Self sufficiency, although not as much as Rangers, maintaining their gear and equipment, liaising with locals, various utility skills they make use of outside of active combat situations, etc etc.

There's enough there that I think you could have a meaningful array of out of combat powers for any stat or concept that used the Fighter class.

>>51539831
Thing is "fighters" aren't professional soldiers - "warriors", the NPC class, are. Fighters can literally just be anyone good with a blade
Obviously if you expanded it to include professional soldiers then it'd expand massively, not least because you could probably give them some sort of trade / craft skills that they were engaged in "before they signed up".

>>51537415
>Giving fighters and other martial classes more and better out of combat utility is the key balance point I really wish D&D achieved. Even 4e, for all its vaunted balance, failed pretty hard at that one.
Why do you say this, considering skills were meant to be robust enough to allow for whatever the DM would go for, and there were plenty of ways to get the skills you wanted?
I agree that some classes got shafted on trained feats had, tho, fighter well into that.

>>51539856
>Fighters can literally just be anyone good with a blade
And that is exactly the problem. To quote the Angry GM:

>The fighter was a fine class when the archetypes were very broad. It encompassed several archetypes: the marksman, the knight, and the barbarian. Half the cast of Lord of the Rings could end up in the fighter class. And there was plenty of space in the class for them because class didn’t mean a whole lot. And the fighter was also a fine class when not every class had to be equally good at fighting.

>But now, when the class list includes the monk, the barbarian, the ranger, and the paladin, and every class has fighting skill, what is the fighter still doing in the roster? “Best at fighting” isn’t a strong enough definition when most of the archtypes that once fit under that definition are now classes on their own. Round about the time we decided barbarian and ranger were good ideas for classes, that’s also the same time the fighter should have changed to something like soldier or knight. It’s archetype should have been tightened up. The heavily armored melee dude or dudette.

>>51539920

Because skills are utterly fucking irrelevant compared to magic.

>>51539929
I agree, Fighter would benefit from getting turned into Legionnaire / Soldier / Knight. One way to distinguish it might be to give him actual bonuses for being on horseback and the ability to specialize into catapracht-type classes, and in a non-combat equivalent, have him be a mini-druid for purposes of taking care of horses and such.

>>51539955
In 4e, outside rituals, which are both expensive and time consuming, there are only a handful of powers per class that can be said to "circumvent" skills.
Shit, the real problem is being able to replace skills with another skill, like tying everything to Arcana, Dungeoneering or Stealth.
Gimme some examples, then.

>>51539979

4e is actually the one example of this getting better, although oddly worse in some ways.

Rituals and eventually Martial practices are kinda bad, often costing too many resources and making you spend permanent value on small temporary benefits.

Skill powers are fucking awesome though. The out of combat skill powers basically define how I'd like to see utility expanded for all types of class, not just magic users.

>>51540030
>Martial practices
I thought they were good, but needed expanding upon.
>spend permanent value on small temporary benefits
This is something I didn't understand, isn't the idea of player wealth in 4e a fluctuating thing by nature? That spent or used wealth was supposed to be replaced, and "wbl" was a guideline, not a hard truth? I was happy to throw piles of residuum and one shot items at my group, and it actually encouraged them to use rituals and other oddball tactics because there was no fear of being punished for it.

>>51539799
>that's just how magic works
I think this is the main issue, and slightly overlooked.
Magic doesn't have to work that way, and similarly in the other direction you could also give martials epic feats of charisma or improvisation skill.

>>51540608
>Magic doesn't have to work that way
Right but magic just not being able to do thing when they seem to be relatively simple tasks compared to, say, sending a bunch of meteors at someone or stopping time, doesn't really sound like magic anymore and would probably take away from the charm of playing a Wizard. I know the first thing I do is use Predistigation to give myself Sharingan or something every time I play.
And I mean why the hell would charisma be tied to martial classes? A big buff dude with a sword is empathetically not going to smile his way through things, or at least it doesn't tie to him being good with a sword.

>>51540647

> the first thing I do is use Predistigation to give myself Sharingan or something every time I play.

What the fuck?

>>51540668
What do you use Prestidigitation for then let's hear it

>>51540726

Minor utility and flavour stuff? What it's meant for?

>>51540647
Then don't have meteors and timestops.
There's also plenty of martial heroes in legends and various media with other great skills like crazy charisma.

>big buff sword dude shouldn't be charismatic
And your smart dude waving a stick shouldn't be able to outright break reality from that same perspective. Just saying.

more generally what I'm saying is this: you're giving epic abilities to one archetype and only mundane abilities to the other. in terms of player classes that is unfair and just doesn't work out well. if you want to give all players an unfair (dis)advantage against the rest of the world (i.e. all wizard/martial party) on the other hand, go nuts.

>>51540748
One of the things prestidigitation can do is color shit so I'm pretty sure you can give yourself technicolor hair and heterochromia and shit with it
At least I've never had a DM tell me you can't

>>51540770
I know it's unfair, that's why one of the proposed solutions I like is to ditch "fighter as a class" for the reasons >>51539929, >>51539958 said. It's like a broad archetype when almost all matching subtypes have their own classes, instead of being the last subtype that DOESN'T have its own class.

>then don't have meteors and timestops
Yeah I'm sure nerfing wizards from all their tier 6+ spells will go over swimmingly with the players
And look mate I get your idea but you shouldn't just shove charisma-boosting skills / abilities onto martial classes without some sort of justification for it at least.

>>51540839

Ohh, you just meant the eyes. I thought you meant bullshitting your way into the ninja superpower.

>>51540839
Fair enough, that seems like a decent solution.

I know, butchering a specific system by just throwing on hard nerfs isn't a very elegant "solution". I meant it more as a general direction for system/setting design rather than a particular modification.

>without some sort of justification
Eh, the vast array of possibilities with magic in standard DnD-like games doesn't seem that well grounded either. To me it looks more like "because magic" allows modern people to make the leap in suspension of disbelief easier.

>>51540954
I mean yeah, it's not a great justification since it's presented as systemic in nature yet has obvious gamey restrictions.

>>51533519
Y-you see how you're an idiot, right? Like, as soon as the troll cools off, you deliberately throw flame in his face? How does that help the thread?
Or are you the troll?? Cue derail.....

>>51539856
>>51539929
THIS.

Either make fighter a profissional one, maybe with the hierarchy aspect in mind and warlord type powers to differentiate him from paladins, rangers and barbarians, OR remove those 3 and make them (in a 5e approach) archetypes to dig in.

If the 5e fighter had as archetypes: paladin, ranger, barbarian, warlord (*cough* battlemaster) it would be awesome in my view.

>>51537415
>Even 4e, for all its vaunted balance, failed pretty hard at that one.

A 4e fighter was not significantly worse than anyone else out of combat. You had the same choice of taking utility based feats and powers (especially skill powers) as everyone else. Some classes also covered the skillmonkey role, but you were in no way helpless next to them (short of a few really optimized for utility builds), in no small part because of how skills and skill challenges worked.

>>51508195
>Does game design matter in RPGs?
I don't know anon, DOES game design matter in a game?

>>51547617
>Rpg
>game

>>51551888
Yes, it's obvious that the 'G' in 'RPG' stands for 'Grenade'.

File: A_cup_of_blood_by_Cropca.jpg (37KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 600x450px

>>51508195
Hi, game designer here. Going to try to answer these if I can. My training is in economics, game theory, information technology, IT Security, probability, statistics, and 11th-15th century European arms and armor, as well as hand to hand mixed martial arts.

>Does game design matter in RPGs?
I think I see what you're getting at here. I'll answer it by stating the goals of a game designer, and I'll exclude all the intangible stuff like "player experience".
A. Research the market to deliver its most current quality standards and expectations.
B. Find a void and fill that with a niche that distinguishes your product.
C. Incorporate design that follows A and B throughout, while providing a rule and system set that will be accessible to your audience as well as last in their memory.

So yes, extremely important. I know you meant the "systems" but this is a holistic approach and much more applicable.

>How significant is the system you're using for the experience, and how big a deal are flaws the system might possess?
Despite worrying over my games' flaws (of which I catch many), players don't seem to mind or notice in any appreciable way. As long as you don't have multiple dealbreakers, it tends to work out if the system is compelling. So that should hint that the system is very important.

>Does the GMs ability to fix things via rule zero hold a much larger sway than design itself?
No. The work should be offloaded onto the system as much as possible and not the GMs. Rule zero exists to remind players this is about their vision, not mine. I can only try to share my vision and hope someone adopts at least most of it. The more I share that is (hopefully) useful to my audience, the less work they do—the more they want to play and spread my game. Giving GMs busywork to fix all your faults is just going to frustrate them.

>>51555199

As a game designer, how do you feel about the mindset of the people in the thread who actively argue that the work you do doesn't matter?

>>51555447
I don't really pay it any mind. They may not know but I certainly know that you don't skimp on one aspect to deliver more of another. You keep your quality high and consistent all around. You might have a limited amount of time and resources, but being good at what you do makes a lot of room for having good narrative, tone, lore, theme, and population (database stuff, like adding items, random tables, skills, and so forth). But it also means you're efficient at pulling out mathematical systems that achieve your goals such as:
-Player triangularity
-Congruency between the play and the narrative
-Internal consistency (verisimilitude)
-"Balance"
-Staying away from the ivory tower meme
-Scalability
-Conforming to your degree of simulationist vs narrative spectrum of specificity

In the end, if I've done my best and applied every tool I know and all my experience, all I can do is take credible feedback at that point as long as it comes on a good-faith basis. I can't gain any useful information out of "game design is useless in this kind of game" so that's ignored in favor of someone who can articulate what they would like to see improved.

>>51555524
>the ivory tower meme
the what now

>>51509012
>"A familiar example is D&D 4e's early monsters having too much HP, which is hardly worth obsessing about since there are a few easy guidelines for adjusting that to better suit a group's tastes, allowing the discussion to move past that moot point.."
You'd fucking think, right? Edition wars were a joke..

>>51555649
As a designer, you can't presume you know what's best for the players and sit atop your designery throne, dictating down to the lowly peons that merely play your game.

Basically, you dump a bunch of populations into your system (see my post above for what that means) and hope players will just master the system and figure out what works for them. Optimizers gonna optimize. Thematics gonna...well you get the idea. The key principle is that you the designer have decreed that all your content is usable to someone and you just merely need to point your mighty design finger at the page, and it fills with all sorts of esoteric (but 100% usable!) things.

That's essentially the lazy design that makes a lot of card games so crap. You fill the game with utter junk, maybe playtest a few, then leave it up to players to form a collective neural network and figure out the best stuff. Let the peons roll around in the mud.

Aside from being lazy, arrogant, and a bad work ethic you can't learn anything from; this is bad because it forces players with conflicting payoffs to clash with each other. And so many other reasons.

>>51555697
Ah yeah sorry, I knew I heard the term somewhere before

>>51508195
I think the question is flawed, because there's only one possible answer. Of course it matters, because if not, why use a system at all and not just freeform everything?

A better question would be: "Does it matter more than other concerns?" Which is a more debatable subject.

Now, I'm of the opinion that a good group (and I'm keeping the definition of "a good group" intentionally vague here, because you could have an entire separate debate over what makes a group good) can make any system work. Between the ability to houserule anything you don't like, application of rule zero, and the simple fact that roleplaying is a social game (so simply doing shit with some cool friends makes it fun almost automatically), even the worst systems in the world can be made enjoyable, even if you have to ignore 80% of the rules.

But then, why does it even matter if anything can work? In my opinion, it comes down to two things. First of all, does the system support the type of game you're playing. You're probably not going to play Everyone Is John using Pathfinder, and you're probably not going to play WFRP using Exalted. Again, both of those can work if you really want to, but there's a mismatch to overcome that you wouldn't need to overcome in the first place if you used an appropriate system.

>>51555751
Which brings me to the second point, which is how much work does a system need to work for your tastes and purposes, both in terms of mechanics, in terms of themes, and in terms of ready-to-use content. One could argue that there's very little wrong with using FATAL to play a game in the Forgotten Realms. It could work just fine. But since FATAL has a lot of stuff that's either stupid and broken or that most people simply don't want to have in their games, it would need some work before you'd be willing to play it. When at the same time, you could just grab D&D 5e off the shelf and get to playing immediately. Which isn't to say that 5e is the perfect game, but it doesn't require any work to play it as-is and doesn't contain any outright broken or disgusting content like FATAL.

So, to sum it up: What system you're using isn't the most important thing, and using the "wrong" system can be made to work just fine in almost all cases. But using a system that both supports the type of game you want to play and has solid mechanics that don't require heavy houseruling will both make your roleplaying experience more enjoyable and saves you a lot of work.

>>51555759
You should also probably mention that aside from being an annoyance for the GM to flip the entire system upside down, players also have to learn those rules. Most players probably know D&D more or less by heart, at least the fundamentals, but if you change the entire spell list, fuck with the classes, change how character creation works, and add three new mechanics, the players need to spend time going over it and making sure they know what you've done too, and honestly most of them probably don't have time for that. A few houserules and gimmicks, some new monsters, homebrew classes? Fine. Changes to the point of being more or less another system entirely? Not as fine.

>>51555524
>Player triangularity
I'm not a big fan of this concept when it comes to roleplaying games. It works in wargames, card games, etc., but I find that every single time a player will go for the high risk/reward options, both because roleplaying games tend to be more lenient on player mistakes compared to wargames and card games (which are usually competitive "PvP" games and thus punish mistakes harshly), and because taking the safe option isn't "cool".

>>51555751
>roleplaying is a social game
I would disagree that it can be reduced to only this option. It's certainly allowed to be a social game. However, it can also be competitive or more like a board game as well. It really depends on how your group wants to play and how far the rules will support those models.

For instance, I would say that WoD has a high support for social but low for the other two. Whereas DND4e has high ability to be a board game and has to work hard to fill the other roles.

>>51555783
That would fall under the "saves a lot of work" header, but you're entirely right of course.

>>51555820

>Whereas DND4e has high ability to be a board game and has to work hard to fill the other roles.

Competitive I can see, but nothing in 4e stops it being a social game or a completely functional roleplaying game in its own right.

This always confuses me. How is a set of clear mechanics using standard layouts bad for roleplaying? It just makes the rules side easier to work with so you can worry about it less while playing your character, letting you focus on who they are as a person instead of messing around with your sheet.

>>51555820
I mean social as in "a game you play with other people (probably your friends), face-to-face in a social environment", not necessarily any assumption about stuff like that.

>>51555811
You could just be less lenient overall

>>51555834
It isn't. It's just screaming and tantrums from people who needed rules for every little thing in order to roleplay. What inhibits roleplaying is your "role" mandating statistics for even the pettiest things.

>>51509012
>For the most part, people tend to like to argue from the RAW stance, because system arguments are mostly about exchanging complaints until everyone leaves upset but convinced that they came out on top. Often, these arguments end up being rather far removed from how anyone actually plays the games, because they revolve around assuming the only way to play is in the absolute worst ways with no possible opportunity for remedy.
While that's undoubtedly true for most of /tg/, I think that's a very dishonest way to look at things.

Comparing RAW vs RAW isn't done because people are bad at games, but because it's the only halfway objective way to compare two systems. If you're allowing houserules into the discussion, you might as well claim that RaHoWa is a good game, because you can just houserule all the stuff that's dumb, offensive, broken or missing. That's no way to argue about a system.

Not to mention that most players either plays RAW or at least very close to it.

>>51555860
I think the problem with making actual systems for roleplaying is similar to the problem behind """"""social combat"""""""
You simply cannot make rolls for every little fucking thing. It would take literal hours in real life for someone to order a motherfucking pizza if you rolled for every little real-life social cue.

>>51555811
>but I find that every single time a player will go for the high risk/reward options
I find discussions like this to be the best. Now we can really get down to business. What I try to do is be aware of the strengths, weaknesses and therefore appropriateness of any game decision or mechanic. So if I were to want a triangularity element, I need to think about its weaknesses and try to address them. If I can't, it gets tossed. I've thought about your point many times before. Here's what I came up with:

-Have the high risk, high reward option actually reinforce that risk. Such as permadeath, losing valuables, or losing precious resources. If you design a game with resource management that natively rewards caution, then HR-HR becomes the exotic option that you rarely take (usually when you need to make a comeback) rather than the norm. An example would be in Dark Souls. Before a player learns to correctly time a roll, shielding is the default. But when they start getting smacked around, suddenly that roll button gets smacked more often (disregard the entire example after intro-level play).
-Make the LR-LR option capable of interesting, dramatic results. Only the reward has to be low, commensurate with the risk. However the presentation, even in the core rulebook, can be cool enough to establish itself as a norm. Another Dark Souls example: holding your shield up while circlestrafing an enemy to fish for backstabs is insanely low risk, the only risk being you run out of stamina or R1 too late after dropping the guard. Against a humanoid enemy, you get this awesome killcam and satisfying crunch. Let's ignore the damage because we're just talking about the ways in which risk-averse players can still feel accomplished.

You can even use both methods (albeit sparsely) at the same time to create an even larger narrative gap that still falls within a proper triangularity decision.

>>51555834
>How is a set of clear mechanics using standard layouts bad for roleplaying?
It's not. If you read what I said, you just have to work harder to fill the other roles (THAN you do to fill the board game role)

>>51555834
>>51555923
I'm not the guy yoiu're responding to, but can you explain what makes WoD have higher support for social gameplay than other games? I'm familiar with WoD's themes. but not as much with the actual games.

>>51555950
The storyteller system is more accurately a set of systems of drama. This is because it creates a modular solution to any general situation. You have a grid of 9 attributes, and a set of minor traits that hover around 30. When you're in a situation, you always roll
A. An attribute (you will always have at least 1)
B. A minor ability. Take different penalties based on which of 3 categories it falls under.
C. Total successes that hit the target number
D. Narrate the outcome based on a gradient of success

Example: Attempting to pick a security lock: roll Dex + Larceny, TN 8. If the player has no larceny, they take a -1 dice penalty (or +1 TN or whatever) for being unskilled, and try it with pure Dex.

There exists a combination of two things for just about ANYTHING you can imagine. You can do some really clever stuff including full and sprawling social encounters. In fact, Vampire was designed to abuse that. Now the combat on the other hand...is abominable. I don't even know how people can consider it functional much less acceptable. It's a long drawn out series of asinine rolls and counter-rolls and tiny TN adjustments done in an esoteric order with confusing turn timings. Oh and WOD is purely theater of the mind so good luck making it a board game.

File: 1471438983031.jpg (41KB, 302x389px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 302x389px

>>51556021
Storyteller's core system is an outdated, archaic mess, god damn.

Single-axis skill systems for life.

>>51556021

But doesn't that involve ignoring the vast majority of the rules?

I can see that core concept being appealing, but Storyteller's mess of derived attributes that make some skills far more valuable than others on top of pointlessly crunchy mechanics just seem to completely undermine that notion unless you're willing to toss most of the system out the window.

>>51555697
The Ivory Tower mentality makes me so fucking angry.
I'm writing games myself, for fun, and working through your game again and again and again and again and again to find any kinks and problems that might come up for people and clarifying and fixing them is the hard part of game design. Anyone can make a game that works when they sit at the table, the challenging part is to make one that works independantly of the designer.
The fact that there are assholes in the industry that get payed fulltime for shitting on pages and never looking back never ceases to make me angry.

>>51556111
The ivory tower mentality is bad because most of the time they don't even admit they have this mentality
Like, the guy who makes Aurora4x flat out comes and tells you - no, I don't care what you want, this is a game I've been programming for my own fun and just happen to put online. A lot of people who do the same and don't care pretend to care which is rage inducing.

>>51556063
Not at all. I don't know what particular book gave you that impression but every skill should be equally valuable if the GM sets the game up right. One example off the top of my head is that firearms might be highly risky even though the weapons themselves are deadly: set it in a city with tons of police patrolling everywhere that instantly try to arrest you. You don't need to throw out anything to make it work. Those skills are essentially votes for what you want to see in the game, and what you don't pick is telegraphing how you'll be foiled.

>>51556129

It's almost worse that there are people who will actively defend that kind of 'design'. People so loyal to a company or a brand that they'll actively defend its designers being lazy.

>>51556129
Kinda bad example since Steve also implements a lot of stuff suggested by users or asks for input and fixes reported bugs he didn't experience himself.

>>51556197
I guess
Honestly the worst part about ivory towers is they have this mentality that you're begging to play their game and it's a privledge that you get to use their esteemed system. Like no.

>>51556208
The lack of self-awareness from those developers makes me blush.

>>51556129
Honestly, I can respect it when somebody says "I'm doing this as a hobby and making the game I want. I don't have any higher aspirations than doing this for fun."
Really, I'm not holding everyone that's writing games for fun to the same autismal standard I'm adhering to. What pisses me off is when somebody does this for a living or claims to adhere to the same standards and then just doesn't give a shit.