TRPG General Chat

user61230

6:17 AM

Hmm.

user61230

So, there's a theory that I've been developing about RPGs as a whole, and I think this ties into it

user61230

There's the difference between what the game is designed to handle and what comes out during play, and I think that might somewhat throw a wrench into an otherwise absolute statement about the Oberoni Fallacy (@Lord)

Lord_Gareth

I am listening.

user61230

For the purposes of what I'm thinking, there are a few major categories of questions that game systems are designed to handle

user61230

I'm going to get my notes out, one minute.

Miniman

6:20 AM

@Emrakul I just realised, if the Oberoni Fallacy is correct, the belief that it is wrong would be the Oberoni Fallacy Fallacy Fallacy.

Lord_Gareth

Keeping in mind that the fundamental aspect of Oberoni is, "If you have to fix it, it's a problem."

user61230

The counterpoint is that there's a difference between questions the system is designed to handle and questions the game needs to handle

user61230

Is it 'fixing' if the game asks questions the system isn't prepared to handle, so needs to be tweaked?

Miniman

@Emrakul Assuming the system considers itself adequate to play the game, yes.

user61230

Question II: Is that a reasonable expectation?

Miniman

6:23 AM

@Emrakul Aw HELLZ naw!

Lord_Gareth

@Emrakul If the system makes the claim, it is reasonable to expect that the claim is true, and problematic if it is not.

Adeptus

@Emrakul How do you separate the game from the system? The system = the mechanics of the game

Miniman

But it's a presumption that a game system by its existence makes.

user61230

@Adeptus I mean to refer to the game as it's played, and the system as it's designed to handle gameplay.

user61230

Whoa, so many responses!

Lord_Gareth

6:24 AM

For example, if the system claims it can facilitate horror style play, but then cannot do so without heavy house ruling, the claim is a problem.

user61230

@Miniman So, where is the line drawn for what is and is not a reasonable expectation of a system?

user61230

By saying it isn't a reasonable expectation, there are de facto situations in which the Oberoni fallacy really isn't a fallacy - it's a totally appropriate modification of the rules

user61230

And that's sort of what I'm getting at, @Lord - what do we mean by 'fix'?

Miniman

@Emrakul The problem is that if the game as it's played != the system as it's designed to handle gameplay then you've already houseruled.

user61230

But (I'm going to go out on a limb and say that) a system designed to handle every possible question that arises during gameplay is unwieldy

user61230

6:26 AM

Games have a particular set of questions they're designed to address

Miniman

Or in other words, if you play the game exactly as the system specifies, and the system does not support the game played in that way, then the system has made an erroneous claim.

Adeptus

I still don't get your distinction. Other than system, what else makes a game? Setting. Fluff, to use the RPG.SE vernacular. The entirety of the game mechanics, is the system.

Miniman

@Adeptus There is a difference between the rules of D&D and a game of D&D.

user61230

There are three predominant categories of questions I've identified: Scene questions, personal questions, and historical questions.

Lord_Gareth

@Emrakul Well, for instance, let's use Pathfinder. Pathfinder is a highly legalistic system which makes the claim that its rules make sense and permit the actions they present in their fluff. One of Paizo's recent FAQs made mounted combat - a set of rules - literally non-functional without houseruling.

Adeptus

6:28 AM

Well, yes. But is there a difference between the rules of D&D and the game, D&D?

Lord_Gareth

So here we have a claim - "You may perform this set of described actions" - which has not been met

And it must now be houseruled in order to function at all.

Miniman

@Lord_Gareth Just to check that we're on the same page, you don't mean mounted combat became useless/impractical/imbalanced, you mean the rules cannot be followed?

user61230

A player asks the Personal Question, "How do I ride on a horse?" (which is a bit broad), and finds that the system does not support the player in this action

user61230

But if a player asked the question "How do I ride the wind?" you'd have to respond with "you're playing the wrong game - this isn't a question Pathfinder is designed to handle."

Miniman

@Emrakul But if the system includes rules for riding the wind, which do not allow a player to ride the wind, those rules are making a claim they do not support.

user61230

6:30 AM

But if a situation arises in Pathfinder where a player is riding the wind, is the system broken for not being able to handle it? And I'd argue it isn't, because that's not something the system is supporting.

Lord_Gareth

@Miniman Yes.

Miniman

@Emrakul Yep, that's the point I was trying to make earlier. If the player is riding the wind, somewhere along the way someone has modified the system.

user61230

That's sort of the issue I'm aiming at with the Oberoni Fallacy - systems are designed to support particular sets of game questions, and if a player asks a question the system isn't designed to handle, using Rule 0 isn't fixing the system

Miniman

At that point any claims it has/has not made are invalidated.

Lord_Gareth

@Emrakul But Oberoni isn't talking about this. Oberoni is talking specifically about the pattern, "System presents X rule which has a problem," being responded to with, "Rule 0 fixes it, therefore not a problem"

It makes no statements about if the initial claim is valid or not, only that "Rule 0" does not invalidate the existence of a flaw.

user61230

6:32 AM

What if rule X is being applied in a way it wasn't designed to be?

Miniman

Incidentally, players can ride the wind in 3.5 (I'd assume PF, too). But you probably knew that.

user61230

Yeah, was just using it as an off-hand example, sorry

Miniman

@Emrakul No apology, I just thought I'd point it out. If I'd cared I'd have mentioned it when you brought it up.

Lord_Gareth

@Emrakul I'd say you're in the wrong fallacy at this point. Oberoni is more about things like drown healing rather than general statements on if you can take Rule X and apply it to a similar but not covered situation. That is, Oberoni is not making a value statement about house rules

It is making a value statement about the original rules

doppelgreener

@BESW Brace yourself; I bet all the Excel training in the world hasn't prepared you FOR THIS!!!!

user61230

6:35 AM

@Lord But what if rule X is being applied in a way it wasn't meant to be, but is still a completely valid situation?

doppelgreener

(mainly posted for the sake of reaction/infuration, I don't expect you to have an answer but I will be pleasantly amazed if you do)

Miniman

@doppelgreener It's an effortless problem in SQL

Lord_Gareth

@Emrakul Can you actually provide a situation for this, because in 3.PF - the originating territory of Oberoni - that doesn't actually happen. Applying Rule X to Foreign Situation is already a house rule because the rule system is legalistic and exception-based.

So complaining about how Rule X doesn't cover something it wasn't designed to cover is, at that point, just pointless wrist-slitting

doppelgreener

@Miniman This would be so easy in SQL

Miniman

@doppelgreener Alternatively, you write a VBA macro that could fix it. Or (since it's a csv) any programming language of your choice.

user61230

6:37 AM

Hmm... Gimme a minute to think of an example

doppelgreener

@Miniman Bureaucratic organisation. IT LAUGHS IN THE FACE OF REQUESTS FOR ACCESS TO SOFTWARE REQUIRED FOR DOING A JOB PROPERLY.

Miniman

@doppelgreener Incidentally, I meant importing the table into SQL to run the calaculations and spit it back out.

Never mind

@doppelgreener In that case, VBA is your only option.

Adeptus

@doppelgreener Since you have the CSV, can you import it into SQL? Or... isn't there a SQL-like query language within Excel? (I'm trying to remember the last time I tried to manipulate data into a report)

Miniman

Assuming you can't, e.g., send it to me and have me do it in half an hour tops.

doppelgreener

@Miniman confidential data

Miniman

6:39 AM

I figured, but I thought I'd offer. VBA it is! (Have fun)

doppelgreener

@Miniman aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa thank you aaaaaaaaaaa

Miniman

@doppelgreener It'll take a while, but VBA is Turing-complete

user61230

There's a close knife fight in a hallway ten feet wide, and a third party wants to move through the hallway.

Miniman

@Emrakul Fly.

doppelgreener

@Miniman I have never used VBA in Excel in my life.

I'm gonna give that Excel question some time and hope it can stay that way.

user61230

6:41 AM

This is simple enough for discussion. (I'm also going to definitely defer to your calls on how 3.PF would model this, @Lord, since hell, you're a writer, and it's been a year since I've played.)

user61230

The rules of positioning are being applied to a close knife fight, when they really weren't meant to be. Somebody could totally reasonably pass through on one side, but not in 3.PF.

Lord_Gareth

@Emrakul Depends on how you define 'close'. This is, amusingly, a place where 3.PF can model this.

Miniman

@doppelgreener If it weren't for the multiple samples in a day, a pivot table would do the trick

Lord_Gareth

Grappling causes two creatures to share a space even if they otherwise couldn't and lets you attack with a light, one-handed weapon - like a knife.

doppelgreener

@Emrakul well sort of: in real life, it's pretty reasonable you'd get stabbed whether by accident or deliberately by one of the guys thinking you might be about to rush him. similar thing modelled with opportunity attacks.

Lord_Gareth

6:43 AM

So you can just walk by, should you like.

BESW

Two ogres grappling with knives in a 10x10x50 hallway.

user61230

@Lord Would they have to roll grapple checks to occupy the same space?

user61230

@doppelgreener Let's assume the third party is a hobo who just wants through the hallway, honest.

Lord_Gareth

@Emrakul Whoever started the grapple would need to roll & win to do so, yes. After that, the grapple remains until the victim escapes or the attacker leaves it, or until one or both creatures are moved against their will.

BESW

@Lord_Gareth He means the passer-by.

doppelgreener

6:45 AM

@Emrakul and not a murder variety of hobo... yes, alright, sure

user61230

What I mean to say is that the third party couldn't just walk through the hallway in 3.PF, even though in real life they totally could.

user61230

(Though they'd probably be running like hell, but that aside...)

Lord_Gareth

@BESW Assuming he must pass through that space? Treat it like any other space that contains a creature of your size; you cannot end your movement in that space, you may pass through that space freely otherwise (they can't AoO since grapple)

If there's enough space to move around them (10 foot wide hall) you just walk around with no worries, since no AoO because grapple

user61230

But in real life, he shouldn't have to - five feet is a lot of space, and it'd be reasonably unobstructed.

user61230

There would be no significant obstacle to movement.

user61230

6:46 AM

But because a close-space knife fight is happening in a system where close-space knife fights aren't supposed to happen, something breaks.

Lord_Gareth

@Emrakul As a combatant, I have to say this is really not accurate. If anything, five feet to be grappling and stabbing a guy is claustrophobic

Rolling, struggles, kicks, throws, they happen

BESW

►

Lord_Gareth

they're part of the grapple process

user61230

The hobo waits a few seconds for an opportune moment and runs through.

Lord_Gareth

In any event @Emrakul, the point here is that all involved rules function.

user61230

6:48 AM

True, but they're creating a representation that isn't totally accurate. At some point, there's enough space to move past without obstruction in a 10' hallway.

user61230

But the rules say you have to treat the space as if there's somebody there.

Lord_Gareth

@Emrakul I think you've missed the several times I said that you can move through the space just fine. What you cannot do is stop and rest there for six seconds

user61230

You can?

Lord_Gareth

@Emrakul Aye, you can.

Miniman

@doppelgreener I just worked it out. Use a pivot table to calculate averages and maximums for each group for each sample, then you can copy that out to a new sheet and find averages and maximums for each row.

Lord_Gareth

6:49 AM

If the creatures choose to treat you as hostile you may need an Acrobatics to do so, since in declaring that attitude the implication is that they try to stop you or otherwise form an obstacle.

But if they're indifferent or friendly? You move through just fine.

doppelgreener

@Miniman does that take into account the needing separate averages for each day thing?

user61230

> Opponent: You can't move through a square occupied by an opponent unless the opponent is helpless. You can move through a square occupied by a helpless opponent without penalty. Some creatures, particularly very large ones, may present an obstacle when helpless. In such cases, each square you move through counts as two squares. PF193

Lord_Gareth

See above re: hostile

Miniman

@doppelgreener I'll send you an example.

doppelgreener

@Emrakul The idea, I think, is that if they want to let you past, they briefly treat you - and you briefly treat them - as not an opponent.

Lord_Gareth

6:52 AM

In any event I still fail to see how your point relates to Oberoni. Again, Oberoni talks about - Rule X fails to function, claim is made that Rule 0 invalidates that functional failure.

user61230

Hrmm. Fair, that makes sense.

doppelgreener

If they do think you're an opponent... well, I'll take my friend into a 10" wide alley, we'll pretend to knife-fight with rubber knives, and you see if you can get past us without getting slashed by what boils down to an attack of opportunity.

Lord_Gareth

If you want to describe the lack of narrative accuracy as a functional failure, being able to fix it doesn't make it not a failure

It just means you solved it for your table

user61230

What I'm looking for is a situation in which a rule is used to answer a question it wasn't designed to answer, and as a result, breaks.

doppelgreener

@Emrakul if the rule breaks, can it actually be used to answer the question?

BESW

6:53 AM

@Emrakul Economics comes to mind.

user61230

Yeah. The point I'm trying to make is that if the rule is being used to answer something it wasn't designed to answer, it's not 'fixing' the system to houserule it, it's just improving it

user61230

And as a result, the Oberoni Fallacy can only apply to questions the system was designed to address.

user61230

(Improving as in improv, not improve)

Lord_Gareth

But at that point you have moved beyond the scope of the fallacy entirely

Adeptus

@Emrakul improvising

Lord_Gareth

6:55 AM

Because you're starting from a base of houseruling.

Oberoni talks about what is in the book having a problem

user61230

The point is that Rule X still applies, but it's not designed to handle a particular situation.

Lord_Gareth

@Emrakul If it's being transplanted to a truly foreign scenario, it's houseruling and beyond scope. If it's a corner case, that corner case having a problem represents a flaw in the rule and the fallacy holds.

What middle scenario are you imagining here?

user61230

That's almost my point, honestly

Miniman

user61230

I take it as a lemma that situations will, at some point, arise in games that the game system really isn't prepared to handle.

doppelgreener

6:58 AM

@Lord_Gareth One benefit here is that DFRPG is, I think, one of those games where it doesn't matter that Wizards are hugely powerful. Like, see this situation - a couple of characters with impressive weaponry, a psychic cop and a spaceship pilot. The asker's going to award the weaponed characters with a weapon rating, and is worried that the pilot and cop won't be able to keep up in combat.

Miniman

@doppelgreener should probably move to another chatroom?

user61230

And that if the game has rules which would apply to that situation, but just don't make sense, it's okay to houserule it and doesn't break the Oberoni Fallacy

doppelgreener

To which SSD responds: "This guy has an entire spaceship, and you're worried that he'll be behind the two with a sword and a bat!?"

user61230

A weird situation arises, and there are rules to handle it, but because of the nature of the situation, the rules really weren't prepared to do so, and require a bit of manual tweaking.

user61230

This is totally fine, and isn't an indicator of a bad system, because the rules weren't designed for it. Thus, this passes the Oberoni test.

doppelgreener

6:59 AM

@Miniman yes let's go to not a bar

user61230

(The question of whether the rules should have handled that situation is a different question entirely.)

Lord_Gareth

@Emrakul And I'm having trouble understanding your statement because I have yet to find a case where, if there are rules that apply, the rules are not either A. functional or B. terrible

If there are no rules that apply, that's another matter.

user61230

It's the B section I'm looking at

user61230

Where the rules really weren't designed to handle a situation

Lord_Gareth

Hence wanting a better example

Because in 3.PF - my main systems etc so forth - a rule covering a situation is inherently qualified as claiming to cover the situation. There are no rules in situations they weren't made for, because legalism is how 3.PF works.

No rules means no power

user61230

7:00 AM

Yeah, I'm trying to think of one, but it's hard to think of one on the spot. I can think of one for Fate Core, but I'm just not as familiar with 3.PF...

Lord_Gareth

So give me the Fate Core one, and provide context. @BESW can also assist in translation.

user61230

A player wields a weapon called SuperExtraKilioDeathray. They roll Shoot, and get 2+2=4 shifts.

user61230

This just isn't a situation Fate's designed to handle.

Lord_Gareth

Why not?

user61230

Because "What happens when [player] wields [very very powerful weapon]?" isn't a question Fate is intended to address.

user61230

7:02 AM

It rolls everything the same (disregarding the Fate System Toolkit), regardless of its power.

user61230

You can spend a fate point and make that 2+2+2=6 shifts, but 6 shifts on a SuperExtraKilioDeathray is still pretty under-represented.

user61230

It's not a sign that the system is bad; the system has rules for this situation, but a question is being asked of the rules that they're not designed to handle.

doppelgreener

@Emrakul It's pretty well equipped to handle it. Do one of the following: (a) the death ray has a weapon rating of +99, so that if it hits, you're going to be taken out instantly. (b) The death ray never hits (unless it actually takes you out and everyone agrees the result is you die); all stress is taken from dodging it, just like every story with, say, a normal gun. (Nobody gets hit.)

user61230

In other words, the scope of application of the rules is different than the scope of situations the rules can adequately address.

user61230

@doppelgreener Weapon ratings aren't a part of Fate Core.

BESW

7:04 AM

@Lord_Gareth [glances up] "Ladies and gentlemen--a volunteer!"

doppelgreener

@Emrakul Ok, then if you want to take exclusively and only things mentioned in the Fate Core handbook, take situation (b).

BESW

[cough]

doppelgreener

Or, you use the aspect SuperExtraKilioDeathray to say that the person who got hit - if they did get hit - is now dead. Skip the stress bit. They die.

@BESW Oh, hey, neat. I thought they were in there.

user61230

In other words, two sets of situations: the set a system can address (C), and the set a system is designed to address (D). In a good system, C is a subset of D. In a perfectly-written system, C is equivalent to D. Situations that are in D but not C have to be houseruled.

user61230

@doppelgreener True, that's possible to do, but "here's a Fate point, you die" isn't too much fun :P Even with FP, it's not really simple or easy to handle.

BESW

7:07 AM

@Emrakul [proffers a fisful of FP]

doppelgreener

@Emrakul I just described two simple and easy ways to handle it.

Lord_Gareth

As you can see here, players of the system have quick, easy in-system ways of modeling the situation.

However, maybe more importantly - and I'm going to say this in a way that expresses my frustration - you are still missing the god damn point

doppelgreener

Weapon rating of +99, or stress is not taken from actually getting hit (which is a standard way of handling anything that would be lethal if you got hit)

Lord_Gareth

"Scenario X is not modeled in this system" is not addressed by Oberoni

Oberoni deals with the functionality of rules within the system that contains them.

user61230

But Scenario X is modeled in the system - it's just modeled poorly, and not an application it's meant for.

Lord_Gareth

7:09 AM

@Emrakul Still not addressed

user61230

It's not intended to be modeled in the situation, but the game system can handle it.

Lord_Gareth

Scenario X is not relevant to Oberoni

Rule X is

user61230

@doppelgreener Fate Core doesn't have weapon ratings, and the second isn't within RAW for Fate

Lord_Gareth

If you were thumbing through FATE and found a rule that required you to spend SANITY points, but no other references to SANITY existed, we'd be talking Oberoni

Because now the rule does not work

user61230

@Lord The rules for applying stress for Shoot are the same for KilioDeathray, but they are very poor and broken.

user61230

7:10 AM

Hmm.

user61230

Maybe we're talking about different things.

BESW

[hacks asthmatically until he's blue in the face]

doppelgreener

@Emrakul yes it does, as BESW pointed out, and yes it is "RAW for Fate", and I suggest you misunderstand what is considered RAW for Fate. See the golden rule, which basically says: "these mechanics are a bunch of tools, wield as and when appropriate."

user61230

@doppelgreener Oh, huh, it does have weapon ratings. Well, I feel stupid. Sorry, @BESW, @doppelgreener

Lord_Gareth

Oberoni makes no judgments about a scenario and whether the rules that model it model it well

BESW

7:11 AM

Hey, it's your point that got torpedoed. [sucks on a lozenge]

Lord_Gareth

It only asks, "Does this rule function within the context of the system, and has the claim been made that Rule 0 invalidates reports of nonfunctionality?"

It doesn't ask, "Is it balanced?" or "Does it model?"

user61230

@Lord Hmm... how do you mean 'function,' if not 'works well at modeling'?

user61230

If it literally makes sense as written in the context of other rules?

Lord_Gareth

@Emrakul If I can return to the mounted combat example from earlier?

user61230

Sure!

Lord_Gareth

7:13 AM

The FAQ to mounted combat now causes a character, if they wish to be able to fight while mounted, to spend a move action and a full-round action. This is 1.5 turns' worth of actions or, to translate further, more actions than they actually have or could ever acquire.

As a result, mounted combat literally does not work. You do not have the resources to cause it to work, ever.

doppelgreener

(Specifically also: RAW for Fate never says that if I jump out and yell 'boo' to attack you socially, anything that happens has to have anything to do with me. You could leap out of the way, stumble into someone you like, and take a mild consequence of 'extremely embarrassed')

Lord_Gareth

The claim gets made that you can just houserule it back to 1 turn of actions, so it's not a problem

Now the statement is fallacious

user61230

Hmm... okay. If Oberoni is limited to situations in which the rules mechanically fail, I definitely see what you're saying, and I've probably just had the wrong idea of Oberoni this entire time, and feel rather silly

BESW

I have, too, apparently.

user61230

But I thought it was for situations in which the rules don't mechanically fail, but don't function properly to depict a situation

user61230

7:15 AM

Which explains the confusion of the past discussion. My apologies!

BESW

Because I remember Oberoni being brought up (by Gareth in this very chat, I think) when mechanics failed to accomplish their goals, but could still be used.

Which is why I've been mildly surprised the obvious but semi-taboo context hasn't been mentioned.

Lord_Gareth

@Emrakul It also gets brought up in balance discussions, where we get a claim that Rule X does not function for Intended Purpose X (such as the Knockout ability of Brawlers vs. CR-appropriate monsters) but it's murkier to apply there because now you're making value judgments about modeling.

doppelgreener

@Emrakul Yeah they're not about that. They're about the rules totally failing. "But we can fix them, so they're fine!" says the fallacy-maker. (No they're not, if they were fine you wouldn't have to fix them. The rules are fine when they don't need fixing.)

Lord_Gareth

That is, Knockout never claims to work on CR-appropriate monsters, that claim is simply implied by the system without being explicitly stated.

user61230

Value judgments about modeling is honestly precisely what I'm talking about

doppelgreener

7:18 AM

@BESW Works there too. Mechanic is designed to do X. It is clear and obvious you're supposed to be able to do X with it. But it's badly designed, and you can't do X. You can do something else with it instead, which might not be as good as X. "But you can fix it to do X, so it's fine!" (That's the Oberoni fallacy being stated. It isn't fine. It would be fine if it could do X from the beginning, and no fixing was necessary.)

Lord_Gareth

But the core idea, "Rule 0 means this is not a problem" being incorrect is not invalidated. If you had to fix it, it was a problem. Maybe it was only a problem at your table and does not actually represent a problem in the system (Maybe you shouldn't have been playing Vampire: the Requiem in space), but it's still a problem

user61230

Okay, so, this is still within the bounds of what I'm saying

user61230

I take it as a lemma that all systems eventually encounter questions they can handle, but are not designed to handle. Thoughts?

BESW

@doppelgreener Well, the context I've seen it in is [whispers softly] the Class Which Must Not Be Named. Which can be played, and all its features are usable. But while usable, it does not function as intended and a common counter-argument is that the GM can compensate for this through encounter design.

Lord_Gareth

@Emrakul I'd say at that point what you want to say is, "I am using this system in a manner for which it is not intended, therefore these rules do not actually represent a problem in the system."

Because you're not making the claim that Rule 0 invalidates the existence of a problem.

You're making the claim that your use of the rules does not indicate a more general flaw

user61230

7:21 AM

Well, there's a difference between arguing whether a system does handle a situation, and whether it should.

user61230

Frequently the rules don't/do handle rules they really should/shouldn't.

Lord_Gareth

Which is still not an Oberoni question because you are not making a judgment on if Rule 0 invalidates a flaw

You are making a judgment on if specific use indicates a general flaw

doppelgreener

Oberoni is literally just the statement that if problem X exists, and you can change things to fix it, problem X is not really a problem.

Which is patently false, because it was a problem - you had to fix it.

user61230

(Interesting thought: the Golden Rule of Fate is basically a restatement of the Oberoni fallacy.)

doppelgreener

@Emrakul It is not.

It is absolutely very much completely unrelated and not.

user61230

7:24 AM

What I'm talking about is that if problem X exists in a situation the system does handle but is not intended to handle, then houseruling is not a problem.

BESW

> here’s our general Golden Rule of Fate: Decide what you’re trying to accomplish first, then consult the rules to help you do it.

doppelgreener

@Emrakul You are fundamentally misunderstanding Fate.

Lord_Gareth

@Emrakul As I said before, Oberoni does not make a value judgment about house rules. It does not state or imply that house rules are bad. What it states is that house rules do not mean that flaws in the base system don't exist.

doppelgreener

Fate is an inversion of D&D. D&D is an Engine that runs everything and tells you what to do. Fate is a framework, a box of tools, and it leaves you with that, and it's up to you to do your own thing and work out when you want to use those tools. The Golden rule's expressing that. It isn't expressing the need for house ruling, because there were no rules telling you how and when to use those tools in the first place.

Lord_Gareth

I.E. Just because I can patch the hole in my boat doesn't mean there is no hole

user61230

7:25 AM

/s/houseruling is not a problem/houseruling does not indicate a problem with rule X/

Lord_Gareth

That statement does not make a value judgment on the patch

It makes a judgment on the existence of the hole

user61230

@doppelgreener The golden rule's sort of saying that you should use rules where they make sense, no?

doppelgreener

@Emrakul No, not really.

user61230

@Lord substitute "houseruling is not a problem" with "houseruling does not indicate a problem with rule X"

doppelgreener

That's an inadequate simplification that slightly misses the point.

user61230

7:27 AM

If it's being used in a way the system can but was not designed to handle

user61230

@doppelgreener Hmm, in what sense?

stizzle84

Hello every body

doppelgreener

The Golden rule says: if you want to make something have mechanical significance, consult the mechanics and figure out the appropriate mechanics to use to make that mechanical significance manifest.

It's not like D&D groups who have to skip half the rules or mangle them, because the system's telling them to do stuff that doesn't make sense. Fate doesn't tell them to do that stuff in the first place.

stizzle84

@Doppwlgreener johnathan?

user61230

> Your intent, whatever it is, always takes precedence over the mechanics.

doppelgreener

7:28 AM

@stizzle Hi

Lord_Gareth

@Emrakul Well of course not. Oberoni, again, does not make a judgment on house rules. It makes a judgment on a reaction to a base rule. It does not say that house ruling is bad, it does not imply that house ruling only happens as a response to problems.

It states that house ruling, as an option, does not remove flaws in the system being altered.

user61230

In other words, "if the mechanics conflict with what you're trying to do, throw them out."

doppelgreener

@Emrakul Which, in the context of Fate, means something completely different to D&D's "ignore/change the rules where they don't make sense."

Lord_Gareth

Any more than learning how to build houses as an option removes structural flaws from your home

stizzle84

I like johnathan alot better no offence but its way to long

doppelgreener

7:29 AM

@Emrakul No, because the mechanics aren't there to begin with until you decide "hey, this mechanic would be useful for dealing with this situation." There are no mechanics to throw out.

user61230

@Lord If you have to houserule in a particular situation, though, I don't necessarily think it's a reflection of the rule, which is why I disagree with the Fallacy in select situations

Lord_Gareth

@BESW Am I making sense here or do I need to back off the frustration and raeg that builds within me like the boiling wrath of a dying god?

BESW

@Lord_Gareth You realise that you're constantly flipping between what Oberoni says, and what the Oberoni Fallacy says, and not distinguishing between the two, right?

user61230

@doppelgreener "Don't use these mechanics if they don't work for you"

Lord_Gareth

@BESW Damnit

@Emrakul Look at that phrase. 'Have to'. You were forced to do something. Why?

There was a flaw in the system, either in the specific case (your game) or the general case (the system)

user61230

7:31 AM

Because the situation I'm in has asked questions of the rules system that it can handle, but is not designed to handle.

Lord_Gareth

Which you then had to fix

user61230

Is that a flaw, or is that just me using the system in a way it wasn't prepared to handle?

BESW

Honestly I'm only paying attention with half an eye, but yeah, I think backing off would be a good idea. It's mostly repetitive at this point.

doppelgreener

@Emrakul Yes, and I'm not sure how else to put this: this statement is a completely wrong summary of the Golden Rule. It may be summarising something, but it sure isn't the Golden Rule it's summarising. There are no parts of it that are correct, or even remotely connected to the golden rule in words or spirit.

user61230

Hrrrm... honestly, that thought was just something I threw out there? I think there's still merit to it, but I haven't honestly thought about it enough to say.

Lord_Gareth

7:33 AM

@Emrakul I'd classify it as a specific-case flaw yes; not enough to indicate a general trend, but still a problem which you then solved. You went, "This scenario is not accurately modeled (flaw statement)," and responded by changing the modeling. Which is a very common kind of houserule that often isn't even seen as a fix or intended as one since you're mostly just altering the 'feel' of a rule.

Which is what you keep freaking talking about

Changing the feel of a rule =/= fixing a flaw in a rule

Spell slots -> spell points is not (necessarily) a fix

user61230

I think our confusion is coming from using different definitions, honestly

doppelgreener

"don't use the mechanics if they're not working" presumes the mechanics are present and acting until you ignore them. This is a valid presumption in the context of D&D, but not Fate. The Golden Rule is "use the mechanics where they help you, when you want to use them" presumes the mechanics are not present until you act to introduce or involve them, which is a valid presumption to make in Fate (but not D&D). Like I said, the systems are almost inversions of each other.

BESW

Sweet bile-encrusted spittoon of Neptune, people. Tone it down or take it elsewhere.

doppelgreener

In Fate, the mechanics are only ever involved when you deliberately choose "now would be a good time to involve this particular mechanic." It's a very alien experience to D&D that requires a major mental paradigm shift.

Lord_Gareth

@BESW - Out of curiosity, how long does it take the feed thing to kick a new post into chat?

BESW

7:36 AM

@Lord_Gareth Depends; usually between one and thirty minutes.

stizzle84

@BESW i have straight a's already!!

user61230

@doppelgreener Hmm... that makes sense.

stizzle84

And also hi

user61230

My apologies for turning this into such a heated argument, @Lord_Gareth, @doppelgreener.

Lord_Gareth

@stizzle84 Hail unto thee, mortal thing. Welcome to the fields of wrath and ruin. Lay thine eyes upon them and witness the desolation of all that was once pure and innocent.

user61230

7:37 AM

Oh, come on, I'm not thaaaaat brainless :P

stizzle84

Huh

doppelgreener

@Emrakul accurate but all your brain is now desolated

@Emrakul i didn't feel it was heated, but i was certainly experiencing some no you don't get it frustration :P

Lord_Gareth

@Emrakul Nah, this has honestly been pretty refreshing. I'm used to GitP (hyper-advanced sarcasm means it's hard to tell if the other guy is giving you crap or backing you up), Paizo's forums (wretched hive of scum and villainy) and Myx (cussed me up and down the chat with total impunity, not that I am freaking bitter).

stizzle84

@Gareth wht the crap r u talking about

Lord_Gareth

@stizzle84 unendingraeg.tumblr.com/post/96430470189/… <-That, mostly. And welcome to today's 10,000

user61230

7:40 AM

@Lord_Gareth Ultimately, I honestly think we're just using different definitions for 'flaw,' 'fix,' and 'problem.' Which I'd be happy to flesh out in detail at some point, if you're interested! I'm still curious.

Lord_Gareth

@Emrakul I tend to separate 'rule flaw' from 'system flaw'

user61230

Huh, that's interesting. How so?

Lord_Gareth

Rule flaws are when a rule does not work within the context of the system, or fails to work within its expressed intent (a demon-banishing spell that is easily resisted by demons, for instance)

System flaws are when a system or a chunk of a system fails to deliver on claims, such as the aforementioned mounted combat thing, or to speak more generally, Melee Problems in Pathfinder.

System claims you can play a dynamic, heroic character as, say, a fighter

Fails to deliver

Flaw

System claims that CR 6 wizard = CR 6 paladin = CR 6 monk

They do not

Flaw

user61230

Hmm... I'm a little unclear about what you mean by "does not work" for a rule flaw, and I think this was a point of confusion before. In what sense does the rule fail?

user61230

System flaws I get.

BESW

7:42 AM

Time for Operation My Tofu Is Too Wet.

2

Lord_Gareth

@Emrakul Literal lack of functionality in the former case; the grammar does not make sense, or it references resources, actions, or requirements that do not exist or are impossible to meet.

Metool

"It takes a move action to operate this machine while seated in it, but while seated in it, you can't take actions."

Like that?

Lord_Gareth

@Metool Yes.

In the latter case we'd want to talk about seeing a clear expressed intended use for a rule that it then fails to meet. For instance, an ability that provides a bonus to track checks vs. spellcasters would be a failed rule because it doesn't actually mitigate the problems with tracking spellcasters (flight, teleport, dimension-jumping)

user61230

Aha, that makes a lot more sense.

user61230

With this definition of 'rule flaw,' I absolutely and completely agree with you about the Oberoni Fallacy.

user61230

7:45 AM

We were definitely using different definitions.

Lord_Gareth

Awesome

user61230

What I was referring to, a category of situations that the rules can address, but really shouldn't, are neither rule nor system flaws by these definitions, and are totally excluded from the Fallacy.

user61230

Okay. This makes a whole lot more sense.

Lord_Gareth

Once again RPG.SE proves that reasonable debate can occur on the internet, even when you enable the raeg

user61230

My father once gave me a very useful piece of advice: 99% of extended arguments occur only because people are using different definitions.

user61230

7:47 AM

It's hilariously true.

Metool

Hmm, Move Action Machine is a bit more problematic than it looks at first glance, because it'd probably take an action to leave the machine.

Lord_Gareth

Now to laugh maniacally about the three followers my nascent blog has acquired.

BESW

@Emrakul I've been saying this on chat for at least a year now...

Lord_Gareth

[Villainlaugh.gif]

Metool

Lord_Gareth

7:50 AM

I think that my next post

Will probably be refluffing

Because black gods of hell I hate dealing with jackasses that act elitist and snobbish because they play with the official Paizo fluff

Which has about the skill and coherency of snorting a can of alphabet soup and then spitting on the page.

Metool

Poke me if you write about the phenomenon of badwrongfun.

BESW

Lord_Gareth

@Metool A request? But vhy?

What is it you expect me to say about badwrongfun?

Metool

Absolutely nothing, really.

Lord_Gareth

Then why request it?

BESW

7:54 AM

@Lord_Gareth A loud and prolonged derogatory flatulent sound.

user61230

@doppelgreener Okay, that makes more sense now. I had been using "rule is a problem" to mean that it modeled a situation poorly, but with the meaning "nonsensical" this makes a lot more sense. Oberoni NEQ Golden Rule.

user61230

Okay. My apologies to the chat for the long and unintended takeover, and thanks to @Lord_Gareth and @doppelgreener for a fascinating discussion.

user61230

(And for being so tolerant of me just not getting it.)

BESW

Fate has a selection of generic mechanical sets which work just fine. Between them they try to cover all the kinds of narrative context you might want to apply mechanics to. When you find a bit of narrative you want to represent mechanically, you choose the mechanical set that best fits it.

user61230

Hmm. Is it an accurate comparison to say that the GM's Rule 0 power in Fate is just the power to swap out mechanics as needed?

Lord_Gareth

8:03 AM

That's actually the power of the group

FATE doesn't have a GM in the traditional sense

@BESW This Gif. I feel her pain so much

user61230

Hmm, how do you mean 'traditional sense'?

BESW

In Fate the group as a whole has the power D&D entrusts to the DM alone; the Fate GM is really more of a chairperson, secretary, and labourer: he moderates the group's discussion, collates their input, and enacts their decisions.

user61230

Ahh, yeah, I see that. But then the players wield the equivalent Rule 0 power to swap out mechanics as needed?

Lord_Gareth

@Emrakul No one 'owns' the game in FATE, and the narrative power given to the players means that no individual does the worldbuilding either. The GM is not the final or sole arbitrator of any aspect of the setting.

BESW

Rule 0 is not "you can swap out mechanics as you wish."

Rule is 0 "you can do whatever you please."

Lord_Gareth

8:06 AM

@Emrakul Not 'the players'. The group consensus decides how mechanics are used to model the narrative.

FATE is a storytelling democracy

user61230

Game Moderator v.s. Game Master

user61230

Okay.

Lord_Gareth

I now require sleep in order to refuel the power of my hate

Good night all

user61230

Good night!

BESW

[ponders] D&D is a representational democracy, while Fate is more like direct democracy.

ttfn

(In D&D, you decide who's going to be the GM, and while you tell him what you'd like, the only systemic recourse if he ignores your wishes is to appoint someone else a GM in his stead. Hence bribing the GM with food.)

doppelgreener

8:14 AM

@Emrakul No worries. (I am now home!) I think I also got defensive because you were saying a game I really like had, for its primary piece of guidance, a condensed form of one of the worst attitudes in the D&D player space

I enjoyed it, even if I was a little frustrated in trying to get things across!

user61230

Yeah, I was honestly just completely misunderstanding what Oberoni was talking about.

user61230

And then applying a false equivalence to switching game mechanics in Fate and Rule 0

doppelgreener

@Emrakul yeah; Fate's... very very different

It took me a few games of GMing Fate before I realised part of why I was floundering: "The system's not telling me what to do!! I have to choose for myself!!"

it's something you have to experience to fully understand

user61230

Yeah, I think that's mostly why my Fate games have struggled

user61230

I get caught in thinking the GM should be deciding more than they really should

user61230

8:25 AM

Aww, that's a sad realization. I really was raised on D&D, after all. Many sads.

BESW

I feel I have that exact same problem.

user61230

Huh. Is the job of a GM in Fate literally just to narrate the world, then?

BESW

Heh, no.

doppelgreener

> We’re New. Experienced workers in these fields are rare, and are mostly wretched undead things that arise every dawn solely powered by their hatred of all things that live. The remainder of the workers have anywhere from one day to six months of experience in their specific store and one day to about five years of experience in food service in general.

@Lord_Gareth this is so true and good and so many positive things

BESW

There are, of course, varying implementations. But here's one of the basic things: the party tells the GM the nature of the world, its movement, its obstacles, its heroes and its villains.

It's the job of the GM to look at all of this and cohese it into an actual plot.

More than statting up the things the players tell me exist in the world, it's my job to run threads between those things, and by pulling on different combinations of the threads the PCs are tied to, to escalate problems and maintain tension.

It's a social engineering game, as a GM: I goad my players toward making dramatic decisions rather than practical ones, bribing them with Fate points when simply placing them in situations with dramatic potential isn't enough for them to self-compel.

This is one reason DFRPG suggests that the group not use Chicago: Chicago's already defined by the franchise, so it's harder for the players to tell the GM what they want to encounter and experience.

By defining a new city, the party tells the GM "Everything in here is stuff we want to see, fondle, and smash."

(Because, as a game participant myself, I get to be part of the city-making too, I get to be running a game about things I want to play with, too. The GM isn't dictated to by the players; we're collaborators with different roles.)

user61230

8:39 AM

Weeeeeird. That's not at all how my current GM runs things.

BESW

Well, it's not how I run things all the time either.

My Doctor Who game last week was much more traditional.

My players have told me they like giving me more of the traditional GM's role in terms of plot and setting development, and while I always make sure they're part of it, I get pushback when I try to give away too much of that power.

user61230

So, the GM's role might be to take on all the narrative power the players don't want?

user61230

(And at some point, if the GM takes too much, the GM should just use a different system?)

BESW

It could be read that way.

user61230

((Also, it's very late, and I'm very tired, and need to wake up early for work))

BESW

8:43 AM

ttfn, then.

user61230

Makes sense!

user61230

My apologies. I'm curious about this... Fate is weird. Thank you, again!

doppelgreener

@Emrakul We will both be happy to talk about it more if you have questions, I am sure.

Have a good night!

BESW

Fate is pretty weird. I'm still getting my head around it.

Greener said that playing in my Doctor Who game last weekend helped him understand the role of mechanics in Fate better, and I'm glad--because I'm pretty sure now he understands it better than I do.

doppelgreener

@BESW Hahaha! I wonder if I might.'

My brain spends an awful lot of time thinking about things, analysing them, deconstructing them, etc. It can actually be really frustrating and unhelpful at times. (You know that issue I was having in my life that I told you about? 90% of the reason it was such an issue was that my brain was doing this and amplifying it.)

But it means that when something is reasonably understandable, I get to understand it really well. Now I just have to master my execution of it as a GM...

(given, y'know, enough time to process it)

Transcript for