The problem is choice

[delericho]

How does this mesh with your comments in the thread-that-shall-not-be-named that even legal documents drafted by multiple skilled professionals often run into a "plurality of meanings across a single term or set of synymous terms" and that "it is utterly unrealistic to expect RPG rules, drafted with much less care by people who are not professional drafters, to avoid the problem."?

That's an interesting question. My take on it would be to view it from a software engineering point of view.

When I'm doing my job, we have various levels of acceptance. Software that's only going to be used in the office can have all sorts of short-cuts in place - because we know that this combination of inputs causes problems, it's enough for us to simply not issue that combination.

Conversely, when software goes to the customer, it must be working - there can't be any areas where sensible inputs cause it to break. Additionally, we should be looking out for all the odd cases, the things that happen only infrequently, and also the stress cases (for us, that generally means them setting up and dropping calls in quick succession). Those also need to be working.

But, realistically, we can't catch everything. We could work on the software for a million years, and we'd still never catch anything. So there inevitably comes a point where it's "good enough", and we let it go. And there's also always the possibility that something might come up when the software's out there that we simply didn't foresee. That sucks, but there's not really anything we can do about it.

Anyway, that's where I think an RPG should be - used 'normally', the rules should work. Even when used for the 'hard' cases, the rules should generally work. But there should be an understanding that there will be some corner cases that break the rules, and if you look for those exploits, you will inevitably find them.

(Of course, in SE there's also the safety-critical systems - the ones which must not go wrong, because if they do then people die. Those get a whole other level of attention paid, get multiple safeguards and levels of redundancy. And even then they can't be perfect - so generally several such systems are run in parallel, and if everything else fails then it works to fail safe. I don't work on such systems any more, and I can't say I'm sad about that.)

 

[MJS]

In a good rules system I want players who know and use the rules. If using the rules, or pushing them hard, makes the game fall over, then it's not a game that I'm that keen on playing.

then don't play any version D&D : ) seriously though, a Rules Lawyer is far worse than players knowing the rules, its someone who frequently disrupts the game with rules arguments

 

[Celebrim]

a Rules Lawyer is far worse than players knowing the rules, its someone who frequently disrupts the game with rules arguments

I would concur, except that I would go further of that. There is no definition of 'rules lawyer' that is not pejorative. I mean look, it contains the word 'lawyer' - 'nuff said.

Seriously:

Rules Lawyer: A participant of an RPG that acts as if arguing over the question of the rules is a significant, enjoyable, and important part of the group activities, to the extent that they prefer it over actually playing the game and indeed may consciously or subconsciously treat it as if it was the most significant, enjoyable, and important part of playing an RPG. The Rules Lawyer can have many motivations for this, most of which are not particularly functional. They can simply enjoy arguing and prefer the act of arguing and becoming emotional about the argument to playing the game. They can see arguing about the rules as an important method for 'winning the game' and the rules argument as a key arena in the adversarial relationship between the player and the DM. They can see rules lawyering as an easier and more effective path to solving IC problems than interacting with the IC space. Rules lawyering is generally closely associated with power gaming, particularly in its dysfunctional form. Quite often the rules lawyer wants to receive the pleasurable both the reward of being the PC (the protagonist) and being the DM (the arbiter) in the same game, and so essentially becomes upset whenever anything happens in the game other than they way they would have had it happen. Rules lawyering is often a proxy attempt to take over the DM's setting, universe, or story and rid the DM of choice. And they can enjoy monopolizing the time at the table and in particular being the focus of the DM's attention in a way that they are not when they are sharing the imaginary space with the rest of the party. Often all of these motivations are occurring at once.

Note, this is somewhat different than a player who occasionally raises a rules objection because he believes that the DM is being unfair or forgetful. Rules lawyering is associated with repeated and very argumentative badgering of the DM about his rulings in an attempt to get the DM to retract every ruling the player sees as unfavorable. Rules lawyers are generally silent on rules that would work to their disfavor in a particular situation, and one good test of whether someone is a rules lawyer or simply someone who prefers structure is whether they also remind the DM of rules or circumstances of the scene he might have established but forgotten which hinder or harm their PC or the party. Also, players who just like structure tend to withdraw their complaint quickly if it is clear that a argument that might detract from play time will ensue or the DM is definitely decided on something. Rules lawyers will spend hours clinging to the most tenuous of arguments and interpretations for even the slightest in game advantage.

 

[MJS]

Yes, a RL is rare. They are sometimes also mentally unstable, but I think I am sidetracking whatever this problem is - oh the one player - and in a larger context, bonus inflation - how about suggest to the player that the combo is outscaling the combat engine, and just requiring another few pips to reach the numbers they are currently at? You could even sweeten the deal by offering an extra pip for something else. If the combo seems underpowered at higher levels, you can always restore it then...

 

[pemerton]

How does this mesh with your comments in the thread-that-shall-not-be-named that even legal documents drafted by multiple skilled professionals often run into a "plurality of meanings across a single term or set of synymous terms" and that "it is utterly unrealistic to expect RPG rules, drafted with much less care by people who are not professional drafters, to avoid the problem."?

Or is it that you just want them to not occur too often and to generally be about things that are absurd enough to be discarded?

It's a fair question.

If you can't push the rules without running into this sort of issue, that's a problem for the sort of play I'm talking about. But I think it is possible to have rules that can be pushed hard without falling into this problem - ie where "pushing the rules" isn't pushing the limits of their interpretation, but rather exploiting the possibilities that they open up - 4e makes this a big part of play, both in combat (different players combining their PCs' abilities to make the whole more than the sum of its parts) and in skill challenges (using rituals, powers, skills etc in creative combinations to drive the narrative in desired ways - this is less of a team thing than 4e combat).

The line between the two can sometimes be blurred - the main example I've had as a GM was in Rolemaster, where it seemed possible to use a False Scrying power to send cross-world messages (by using low level scrying spells that would pick up the False Scrying and therefore read the message that, in the False Scrying's image, was written on the subject's body). We dealt with that through a simple table agreement not to use the exploit, and that worked because it was a peripheral rather than core part of play.

I find a strong, shared sense of genre at the table helps establish boundaries between permissible and exploitative, and to settle interpretive questions (eg long before the errata came out, my table had agreed that Weapon Focus et al in 4e didn't work when weapliment was used to cast a spell). Plus rules that allow plenty of opportunites for cleverness that are at the application rather than the inrepretation end of things.

Any of that make sense?

 

[Dwimmerlied]

how about suggest to the player that the combo is outscaling the combat engine,

I suspect it is this point at which a lot of the issues arise. A gamer who considers themselves rules-savvy may accept this for the spirit of the game. Or they may suspect the DM of having favourites. They may feel that on too many occasions the DM has gotten it wrong and that there are no excuses for that. They may have spent a long time on boards like these and read opinions reflecting that DMs who get it wrong are simply crap. Some may feel that banning books is cheating the players because published material is a valid part of the system.

 

[MJS]

I suspect it is this point at which a lot of the issues arise. A gamer who considers themselves rules-savvy may accept this for the spirit of the game. Or they may suspect the DM of having favourites. They may feel that on too many occasions the DM has gotten it wrong and that there are no excuses for that. They may have spent a long time on boards like these and read opinions reflecting that DMs who get it wrong are simply crap. Some may feel that banning books is cheating the players because published material is a valid part of the system.

Thats why I think just adding a few pips is the most painless. Nothing is banned, and the player's "build" chops are honored, just scaled back a few levels, and they can take a pip in Gardening or something as a consolation prize. But I think the best way to is to frame it as a question to the player: do you think this is working? I am very old school, but also am very open to collaborating w players on rules adjustments. They are the best ones to ask...
Not every table had problems with the UA Barbarian, but most did. Every edition is going to need its minor tweaks, like cars of the same type, the maintenance is tied to who's driving it. I think this will be a nonissue once the DM and player have a non-argument about it. You want to reward the player's concept, even enhance it, but work it out together.

 

[Cadence]

Anyway, that's where I think an RPG should be - used 'normally', the rules should work. Even when used for the 'hard' cases, the rules should generally work. But there should be an understanding that there will be some corner cases that break the rules, and if you look for those exploits, you will inevitably find them.

But I think it is possible to have rules that can be pushed hard without falling into this problem - ie where "pushing the rules" isn't pushing the limits of their interpretation, but rather exploiting the possibilities that they open up - ....

I find a strong, shared sense of genre at the table helps establish boundaries between permissible and exploitative, and to settle interpretive questions (eg long before the errata came out, my table had agreed that Weapon Focus et al in 4e didn't work when weapliment was used to cast a spell). Plus rules that allow plenty of opportunites for cleverness that are at the application rather than the inrepretation end of things.


Any of that make sense?

Makes perfect sense, thanks!

From the rules standpoint, is avoiding those issues close to impossible to do with an increasing number of splat books unless there is a huge amount of play-testing/editorial control? (Except of course by the cooperative table of players).

 

[Ranes]

From the rules standpoint, is avoiding those issues close to impossible to do with an increasing number of splat books unless there is a huge amount of play-testing/editorial control? (Except of course by the cooperative table of players).

I know you're asking this question of others but, if you'll pardon my unsolicited contribution, I think it is close to impossible. Here's why:

Editorial control: company A has no control over company B, so editorial control is constrained by publisher. However, even in cases of individual publishers, editorial control is limited by available editorial resource and project budget. These limits are tested by the simple fact that the addition of a single axiom or rule (exception-based or otherwise) adds more to the complexity of a game than the extent of the rule itself might suggest.

Therefore, it doesn't matter whose game it is or how good the original design is; the more you expand a game's rule base the greater the rate of increasing complexity. This is true of all games systems. I suggest, therefore, that the more rules you attempt to accommodate within a given game system, the greater the likelihood some combination of those rules breaks your game.

 

[Campbell]

I know you're asking this question of others but, if you'll pardon my unsolicited contribution, I think it is close to impossible. Here's why:

Editorial control: company A has no control over company B, so editorial control is constrained by publisher. However, even in cases of individual publishers, editorial control is limited by available editorial resource and project budget. These limits are tested by the simple fact that the addition of a single axiom or rule (exception-based or otherwise) adds more to the complexity of a game than the extent of the rule itself might suggest.

Therefore, it doesn't matter whose game it is or how good the original design is; the more you expand a game's rule base the greater the rate of increasing complexity. This is true of all games systems. I suggest, therefore, that the more rules you attempt to accommodate within a given game system, the greater the likelihood some combination of those rules breaks your game.

It depends a great deal in how rules elements are allowed to interact with each other. For example, D&D Next's buff spells that require concentration are less problematic than 3e's extended duration buffs that can sit on top of each other. When balancing a spell that requires concentration the possible game elements to consider are far less dramatic.

Legend of the 5 Rings 4e is a good example of a game that is resistant to knock on effects created by new crunch, because it is all specific to a particular school and tends to replace existing techniques. Exalted 2e's combo ready charms that can be taken by anyone meeting its prerequisites is an example of a system that is highly susceptible to the introduction of new crunch.