D&D 5E Merlin and Arthur or Batman and zatana

[Krachek]

This is literally just arguing "The DM can fiat it, so the rules don't have to be written to be better."

This isn't helpful advice, or a helpful direction for the game

Usual complain, game was boring or unsatisfying cause of the rules!

 

[Chaosmancer]

Well, I was going to respond, but it seems I was blocked.

But, um, yeah.... if the rules aren't good, the game struggles to be good. That's sort of basic. It is like saying that there is no reason to complain about eating in a filthy restaurant, because you can have a good date night there anyways. Sure, you can, but it is a lot easier if the restaurant isn't filthy.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Well, I was going to respond, but it seems I was blocked.

But, um, yeah.... if the rules aren't good, the game struggles to be good. That's sort of basic. It is like saying that there is no reason to complain about eating in a filthy restaurant, because you can have a good date night there anyways. Sure, you can, but it is a lot easier if the restaurant isn't filthy.

ironicly also on tic tok I have seen this huge argument that sprung up from someone saying that D&D is terrible for social mechanics... and people keep arguing "no mechanic IS a mechanic" and I can't help now but think "but my date was HAWT so the filthy restaurant doesn't matter"

 

[EzekielRaiden]

This is literally just arguing "The DM can fiat it, so the rules don't have to be written to be better."

This isn't helpful advice, or a helpful direction for the game

I find this is a common sticking point in discussions of this kind. "The DM is all-powerful, therefore we never need to worry about whether the rules work or not." It's an argument as old as the hills, and clearly very flawed, but people keep making it anyway.

Well, I was going to respond, but it seems I was blocked.

But, um, yeah.... if the rules aren't good, the game struggles to be good. That's sort of basic. It is like saying that there is no reason to complain about eating in a filthy restaurant, because you can have a good date night there anyways. Sure, you can, but it is a lot easier if the restaurant isn't filthy.

Good analogy, though I'm sure someone will come along and detail all the reasons that a game isn't like a restaurant (missing the point of the analogy completely.)

That is: Using a slapdash, jury-rigged thing can get the job done, but it is better to seek stuff that actually fits. Sometimes, that means just iterating on the one thing. Sometimes it means producing multiple parallel options, giving each development time. Sometimes it means working on one versatile thing which can be adapted to several different purposes.

But it's almost never actually wise--to say nothing of effective, practical, or productive--to use something with the excuses, "If it breaks down, I can just fix it!" or "It won't break down, I'll catch any issues before they come up!"

 

[EzekielRaiden]

ironicly also on tic tok I have seen this huge argument that sprung up from someone saying that D&D is terrible for social mechanics... and people keep arguing "no mechanic IS a mechanic" and I can't help now but think "but my date was HAWT so the filthy restaurant doesn't matter"

I mean, technically they're right. But they're right in the same sense that "technically, not offering a seatbelt IS a safety option," it's just the safety option that doesn't do anything.

The problem is, some people see it in a "doing nothing is good, because it means you definitely can't add anything bad as a result" kind of way. And others--like you and me, and I presume Chaosmancer as well--see it in a completely different way: "Doing nothing is bad, because it means you definitely can't address the problems that are already there."

Which might be one of the core issues here. Do people think the situation is one of "things start off great, and you should ONLY add in things if you KNOW for absolute certain they won't make anything worse," or do they think it's one of "things start off full of problems and you NEED solutions for those problems."

Because...yeah. I absolutely am of the opinion that a game with zero rules at all is a game that's going to have problem after problem after problem. It's why even childhood "let's pretend" kind of games almost instantly develop rules about what is and isn't permitted, even if those rules are malleable (e.g. "no takebacks" but then some new gambit appears and must then be defended against.) Because a game completely without rules doesn't work. And if someone grants that, then they don't really have the room to argue that "doing nothing is good, because it means you can't add anything bad." They're already embarked on adding some things, it becomes a matter of what's worth adding, not whether adding things is bad in principle. And that kind of argument, one of degree and not kind, is going to be real difficult!

 

[MichaelSomething]

That is: Using a slapdash, jury-rigged thing can get the job done, but it is better to seek stuff that actually fits. Sometimes, that means just iterating on the one thing. Sometimes it means producing multiple parallel options, giving each development time. Sometimes it means working on one versatile thing which can be adapted to several different purposes.

But it's almost never actually wise--to say nothing of effective, practical, or productive--to use something with the excuses, "If it breaks down, I can just fix it!" or "It won't break down, I'll catch any issues before they come up!"

Terrible rule systems that don't work are actually a great thing! If the rules actually worked, players would use rules instead of the fiction to achieve their goals. The goal of rules is to push the PCs and DM to run in the game in an FKR/improv style.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Terrible rule systems that don't work are actually a great thing! If the rules actually worked, players would use rules instead of the fiction to achieve their goals. The goal of rules is to push the PCs and DM to run in the game in an FKR/improv style.

Just to be clear, this is sarcasm right? It reads like sarcasm, but I've been burned too many times.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I mean, technically they're right. But they're right in the same sense that "technically, not offering a seatbelt IS a safety option," it's just the safety option that doesn't do anything.

The problem is, some people see it in a "doing nothing is good, because it means you definitely can't add anything bad as a result" kind of way. And others--like you and me, and I presume Chaosmancer as well--see it in a completely different way: "Doing nothing is bad, because it means you definitely can't address the problems that are already there."

Which might be one of the core issues here. Do people think the situation is one of "things start off great, and you should ONLY add in things if you KNOW for absolute certain they won't make anything worse," or do they think it's one of "things start off full of problems and you NEED solutions for those problems."

Because...yeah. I absolutely am of the opinion that a game with zero rules at all is a game that's going to have problem after problem after problem. It's why even childhood "let's pretend" kind of games almost instantly develop rules about what is and isn't permitted, even if those rules are malleable (e.g. "no takebacks" but then some new gambit appears and must then be defended against.) Because a game completely without rules doesn't work. And if someone grants that, then they don't really have the room to argue that "doing nothing is good, because it means you can't add anything bad." They're already embarked on adding some things, it becomes a matter of what's worth adding, not whether adding things is bad in principle. And that kind of argument, one of degree and not kind, is going to be real difficult!

Yeah.

There are things that we know will come up, examples that we deal with often enough that we know they will be issues and they will be problematic. A good ruleset accounts for those times. Not because people can't muddle through, or gain decades of expeirence and deal with effectively, but because the framework is useful for consistency and preventing unintended consequences.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Just to be clear, this is sarcasm right? It reads like sarcasm, but I've been burned too many times.

I am being sarcastic, but you can certainly find those grains of thought in these forums...

 

[HammerMan]

FIGHTERS AREN'T THE LEVEL OF GODS THAT SPELLCASTERS ARE! WE ARE USING THE ANALOGY TO SHOW THE PROBLEM!

Am I saying it loud enough? Can you read this? I'm NOT saying I WANT this to be the case.

Your version makes it sound like non magic characters SHOULDN’T get things because they are based on random firefighter or cop not equal heroes.