lock Re: Damage immunity

03 Jul 2012 09:57 - 03 Jul 2012 10:14 #32700 by jamesatzephyr
Replied by jamesatzephyr on topic Re: Damage immunity

Why? Combat isn't taking an action. Blocking isn't conducting a referendum. Damage handling isn't bleed resolution.

Many things are treated differently between different aspects of the game. Why the need to crowbar things which are manifestly different into being the same?

1) So that it does not take a PhD to learn the game.


Twisting your mind into the universe where a referendum being successful is checked using the same definition as a block being successful? Despite the two things being totally different? That requires a PhD in high-grade stupidity.

2) So that during a game, less time is spent checking whether a move is valid or not and more time on deciding the right move and, you know, playing the game.


Because, yes, having an idiotic conversation about whether your block has been voted down or not, because we have to use the same defintion? Completely gonna save time. Totally. About whether your stealth has been prevented? Yep, gonna save loads of time. The vampire who gains no blood from hunting (successful action, unsuccessful hunt) is now somehow handled in the same way as determining a successful block? Super. That's not going to confuse anyone at all. A withdrawal is successful in the same way a referendum is? Yeah, there's a ten minute scream-fest right there.

Your cure is worse than the disease, by an order of magnitude.
Last edit: 03 Jul 2012 10:14 by jamesatzephyr.
The topic has been locked.
More
03 Jul 2012 10:27 - 03 Jul 2012 10:33 #32702 by Boris The Blade
Replied by Boris The Blade on topic Re: Damage immunity

Loads of bullshit and twisting terms on purpose

I am not going to give you any more respect than you give me. You take back that high stupidity and then we can go on on more civil tone.

Punch face -> burn blood
Bleed -> burn pool

Starting to notice a pattern here or are you too thick for that?

More generally, it is possible to find a common sense and general definition of "successful" and you know what? That is already how the rules are designed for the most part. Stuff is successful when it does what it is supposed to do.

What is blocking supposed to do? Prevent an action from resolving. Checked.
What is a referendum supposed to do? Apply the terms of the referendum. Checked.
What is damage supposed to do? There are different cases but it boils down to burn blood or life, wound or burn vampire. Checked, as it seems from Pascal's answer in this thread.
What is a bleed supposed to do? Burn pool. Fails, and even Kevin got trapped in that one. Now do you see the problem?

It should not matter how how stuff is prevented from happening: as long as something prevents it, it should be unsuccessful. This is generally the case except for the loophole in the bleed rule that is implemented by Strix. Because of that loophole, one cannot just use commone sense to determine when stuff is successful or not.
Last edit: 03 Jul 2012 10:33 by Boris The Blade.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Megabaja, Reyda
The topic has been locked.
More
03 Jul 2012 10:46 - 03 Jul 2012 10:51 #32704 by jamesatzephyr
Replied by jamesatzephyr on topic Re: Damage immunity

Loads of bullshit and twisting terms on purpose

I am not going to give you any more respect than you give me. You take back that high stupidity and then we can go on on more civil tone.


Erm, you want to re-define terminology. You have to see what happens what the terms are twisted. Why? Because that's what players do . They want to win. They will find the loophole where you are sticking your fingers in your ears going "Lalalala, this'll be fine" and they'll do it in the middle of a continental championship and all hell will break loose. So you absolutely, positively need to push terminology hard, to see what collateral damage you're possibly doing.

If you don't like that, then you shouldn't be attempting to change terminology in a fashion that alters the fundamentals of the game.

That's not 'bullshit'. If your idea can't withstand robust cricitism, it's not a good idea. If you want to save time because you can't explain the rules already and your idea makes that problem even worse? Then yeah, it's a stupid thing to be doing.

Now do you see the problem?


Honey-bun, sweetie-pie, snukums. The problem of V:TES being complicated isn't fixed by you closing your eyes and pretending really really hard that actions and withdrawals and bleeds and damage and referendums and blocks and hunts all work the same. They don't.

A simpler solution? Identifying a problem and writing a clearer rule, and presenting it more clearly. Or adding a definition to the special terms. Simple things that codify the way things actually are, and make them accessible.


Why on earth people suddenly feel the need that every time they stumble somewhere in the game they have to throw away great swathes of the rulebook (that they don't understand) and then replace it with some new re-write that lacks any sort of robustness? I have no idea.
Last edit: 03 Jul 2012 10:51 by jamesatzephyr.
The topic has been locked.
More
03 Jul 2012 11:30 #32706 by Reyda
Replied by Reyda on topic Re: Damage immunity
James, your contribution is not interesting. Not at all. You are the members of the gang of old players that always say "ruling is fine". Now try to understand people who just want to play a game with clear rules, for a change. Then we'll be pleased.

Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier
The topic has been locked.
More
03 Jul 2012 11:48 - 03 Jul 2012 11:52 #32710 by Ankha
Replied by Ankha on topic Re: Damage immunity

Now try to understand people who just want to play a game with clear rules, for a change. Then we'll be pleased.

Clear, or mechanical (MtG-like?) Being "immune to damage" is pretty clear for me.

I think the rules are pretty clear, if you know where to find them and if you know that you don't find them, it means there's no loophole (being immune fells in that second category). That's why I think there's a need to present them in a synthetic way. The Complete Rules Reference is for instance not complete at all.

As for Boris' suggestion, I think the current rules are pretty much already the way he would like them to be.
Throwing ideas is a good start, but only a start. It lacks an in-depth analysis concerning the pro/cons, how it changes the current rules etc. Maybe Boris don't have time/don't want to do this work, but he can't complain that people strongly criticize "weak" suggestions ("weak" because quickly written and not very solid compared to rules that have passed the test of time).

James, your contribution is not interesting. Not at all. You are the members of the gang of old players that always say "ruling is fine".

James' contribution is pertinent, as it reflects the opinion of a portion of players. By showing the weaknesses in Boris' process, he forces Boris to reformulate and rethink ideas that have been obviously quickly written. If he doesn't suggest something that is bullet-proof, it's just wasted energy that will die here.

Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
Last edit: 03 Jul 2012 11:52 by Ankha.
The topic has been locked.
More
03 Jul 2012 11:52 - 03 Jul 2012 11:53 #32711 by jamesatzephyr
Replied by jamesatzephyr on topic Re: Damage immunity

James, your contribution is not interesting. Not at all. You are the members of the gang of old players that always say "ruling is fine". Now try to understand people who just want to play a game with clear rules, for a change. Then we'll be pleased.


Hey there. You know how I said "We could re-write an unclear rule to be clearer and/or add a term to make things clearer and easier to find"? That's the exact opposite of what you've just claimed I've said.
Last edit: 03 Jul 2012 11:53 by jamesatzephyr.
The topic has been locked.
More
Moderators: AnkhaKraus
Time to create page: 0.149 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum