Fighters Jumping on Dragons

[shinimasu]

The severity only matters if you make it part of your analogy.

But you did make it part of your analogy in that you used the DM allowing rape as an analogous example to the DM allowing dragon jumping in that "These are both things not sufficiently outlined in the rules that require a blanket yea or nea ruling and which I find uncomfortable to witness" am I correct on this count?

And a lot of the following arguement seems to flow from "Uh I think I would be way more uncomfortable watching a DM let a player rape an npc than I would watching them jump on the dragon. I cannot understand any similarity between these two scenarios at all." Rather than any problem with the structure of the analogy itself which is more or less fine save for the godwin level outlier there.

Kaelik: If P then Q. P. Therefore Q.
Shin: Okay yeah.
Kaelik: If P then Z. P. Therefore Z.
Shin: No wait, I don't agree. I think your logic is wrong because Z is like, a totally different letter way later in the alphabet, so I don't know that Modus Ponens applies to letters later in the alphabet!

Small point of order. I feel more like you going "If P then 3" and me going "Wait when did numbers come into this?" but otherwise ok fairly accurate.

Except that they totally would have said "IT IS TOTALLY COOL AND GENRE APPROPRIATE FOR CHARACTERS TO BE FORCIBLY KIDNAPPED! I KNOW BECAUSE I READ BOOKS AND WATCH MOVIES WHERE THIS HAPPENS! AND ANYTHING THAT HAPPENS IN MOVIES IS TOTALLY OKAY TO INCLUDE IN COOPERATIVE STORYTELLING GAMES!"

Or at least, I strongly suspected they might, which is why I chose an example that everyone could agree on.

And ok probably right on that count too.

[zugschef]

So DeadDM, you are a chess master. You have dedicated your life to playing Chess. And you set up the greatest Gauntlet you can imagine, of the best chess players in the world, and Deep Blue. Then, you play them, and beat them. And then when you walk over to be interviewed about your great accomplishment... The interviewer asks you how it felt to beat two 5 year olds in Garry Kasparaov costumes and the beginner bot oh a windows 95 chess program.

Would you feel disempowered? Yes? FUCK YOU.

When you trivialize and shit on the opposition by making them pathetic bitches, you trivialize everyone else in the party facing those obstacles. There is even a fucking name for it, it is called Captain Hobo, and we have talked about it before. You declaring that your hobo can easily master and subjugate a fucking dragon by the sheer act of jumping on it and clinging on no matter what the dragon does because fuck pussy dragons can't do shit to you trivializes everyone else who fights the dragon.

Your analogies really highlight the anal and not the logic part of the word.

[virgil]

Except that they totally would have said "IT IS TOTALLY COOL AND GENRE APPROPRIATE FOR CHARACTERS TO BE FORCIBLY KIDNAPPED! I KNOW BECAUSE I READ BOOKS AND WATCH MOVIES WHERE THIS HAPPENS! AND ANYTHING THAT HAPPENS IN MOVIES IS TOTALLY OKAY TO INCLUDE IN COOPERATIVE STORYTELLING GAMES!"

So having rules for forcibly grabbing and walking away with someone are toxic and disempowering to the game?

[Red_Rob]

Fighters suck. There's nothing I've said in this thread to imply that a wizard wouldn't have a better chance of successfully riding an unwilling dragon that a Fighter.

The fighter concept is: anything a commoner can do + stab/shoot someone in the eye.
In my experience many people will agree that riding an unwilling, angry, gigantic dragon is not going to be something that a commoner can just pull off.

I think there is a bit of a false equivalency being made here between the "low level fighter as mundane" concept and "low level fighters are just an average peasant with a sword". A level 6 Fighter is still supposed to be a level 6 character with all the general competence that assumes. This is expressed in a high BAB and bonuses from Feats way beyond what an average Warrior1 can expect. Therefore I would expect that a Fighter6 could consistently pull off stunts that a "commoner" would find very difficult if not impossible.

Now, I agree that this should be supported in the rules. Having a robust stunting / combat maneuver system and giving Fighters bonuses here is what I would expect and what 3.5 provides. Simply having the Fighter declare they are going to wall run up a column, stun the dragon with a kick to the head and rodeo it into submission with no mechanical support is bullshit. But on the flip side, if the concept of the Fighter is "badass action hero" I would expect it to be able to accomplish your typical action hero stunts with a reasonable degree of success:



It seems that some people here are hyper-sensitive to the "realism" of an action only when carried out by warriors. When grogs on other forums try to shut down casters or flask rogues with excessive REALIZARM arguments about acid flasks breaking in combat or the ability of a wizard to exactly place spells and calculate aoe in a melee we deride them soundly, but here we have the same applied in reverse. If you are going to gloss over the details to allow wizards to be awesome you really have to give the same courtesy to Fighters.

[DSMatticus]

I can't actually tell how much I disagree with Kaelik (if at all).

No is not a dirty word. The game has rules and characters have abilities. If you want to do something above and beyond the sorts of things ordinary humans do in their ordinary lives using their ordinary bodies, then you should have some ability on your character sheet that suggests that that is a thing you can do. Characters don't cast spells because the players asked the DM nicely. Characters cast spells because they have spellcasting on their character sheet. If you want the decisions people make about their characters to be meaningful, you have to actually hold people to them. And no, "if you ask your DM to let you do something outrageous, your DM should consider nodding more strongly than he would normally" is a bullshit class feature and anyone who suggests that should be ashamed of themself.

Captain Hobo is a fucking awful thing to include in your game. Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit is offensively shitty because BMX Bandit can't contribute anything to the duo, but it would be just as offensively shitty if BMX Bandit could contribute. He's an ordinary dude on an ordinary bike, how the fuck is he supposed to have anything to offer the dude who can summon a horde of angels? Just imagine if someone made Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit, except it wasn't a parody. Imagine someone playing that story completely straight. The two fight crime together, and the camera cuts straight from Angel Summoner summoning hordes of supernatural beings to BMX Bandit popping a wheelie in people's faces and back, every fight scene, without the slightest hint of self-awareness whatsoever. That is a hilarious fucking thought. You know it is, I know it is, everyone knows it is.

You shouldn't be asking what needs to happen in order for a mundane BMX Bandit to adventure alongside Angel Summoner. Let's not pretend when a four story demon made of lava and suffering is rampaging across the kingdom that popping a wheelie is an adequate solution to the problem at hand. You should be asking what BMX Bandit needs in order to stop being mundane. Like making him a speedster, i.e. Flash on a bike, and giving him a bunch of superhuman bullshit that'll let him jumpkick four story lava suffering demons in the face at the speed of sound without shattering every bone in his body and then catching fire because he just kicked a walking mountain of ill-mannered lava.

But the idea of a human-sized dude with levels in "being Hercules" clinging onto dragons and stabbing the shit out of them in midair doesn't bother me.

[Kaelik]

But you did make it part of your analogy in that you used the DM allowing rape as an analogous example to the DM allowing dragon jumping in that "These are both things not sufficiently outlined in the rules that require a blanket yea or nea ruling and which I find uncomfortable to witness" am I correct on this count?

Do you understand the concept of analogies or not? The Ocean is Huge. The Ocean is Blue. Your eyes are blue like the Ocean.
Shin: WHY DID YOU CALL MY EYES HUGE?

Saying something is analogous in that they are both things that some people don't want in their games does not mean they are equally as not wanted. In fact, the very structure of the analogy specifically spells out that lots more people don't want rape in their games than forced dragon riding. There is absolutely no point in the analogy or anywhere since where I have at any point said that forced dragon riding is equally as uncomfortable as rape.

And a lot of the following arguement seems to flow from "Uh I think I would be way more uncomfortable watching a DM let a player rape an npc than I would watching them jump on the dragon. I cannot understand any similarity between these two scenarios at all." Rather than any problem with the structure of the analogy itself which is more or less fine save for the godwin level outlier there.

A lot of the following "argument" has been completely bullshit lies about what I said. As DSM and I have both addressed on multiple occasions.

And ok probably right on that count too.

Definitely right now.

Except that they totally would have said "IT IS TOTALLY COOL AND GENRE APPROPRIATE FOR CHARACTERS TO BE FORCIBLY KIDNAPPED! I KNOW BECAUSE I READ BOOKS AND WATCH MOVIES WHERE THIS HAPPENS! AND ANYTHING THAT HAPPENS IN MOVIES IS TOTALLY OKAY TO INCLUDE IN COOPERATIVE STORYTELLING GAMES!"

So having rules for forcibly grabbing and walking away with someone are toxic and disempowering to the game?

See! The first person who talks about it thinks that kidnapping players is totally fine. Aside from rape, I can't seem to find literally even a single thing that these people will agree is a bad thing, even things that are clearly obviously bad for the game.

No virgil, having rules for kidnapping people is not toxic and disempowering. Kidnapping PCs is something that I don't want in any cooperative storytelling game that I am a part of. I am hardly alone on this, since shin just brought this up as an example of something he (foolishly) thought other people would agree is bad for the game.

The den has even had horror stories about shit DMs kidnapping in the past. You personally may enjoy having your character kidnapped, but I find the kidnapping of any PCs to be really fucking shit.

[deaddmwalking]

I can't actually tell how much I disagree with Kaelik (if at all).

Kaelik (and anyone else) can ban anything from their game for any reason. It's just something that people can do. I can also think less of people for it. Usually when people ban things, it's for stupid reasons - mostly that they can't handle the consequences of emergent play. Banning blink rogues is generally bad.

Kaelik has pointed out that we will accept avoiding some things in games (such as rape) with the understanding that people who break that taboo won't be invited back.

The problem with his analogy is that violation of our moral code is considered a pretty acceptable thing to game around not through.

Treating taking a genre-appropriate action in the same way goes too far. His position is really no different than if I said 'spell casting reminds me of Satanic rituals so I'm deeply uncomfortable when people play spell casters'. Clearly, I'm in the wrong game. The difference here is that he's trying to dictate what should be fun for everyone else. Jumping on a dragon can't be a violation of his real-world ethics because there are no real-world dragons to jump on; but in-character rape can be a violation of real-world ethics because real-world rape is a thing that happens.

He's free to continue banning this type of action in his personal games, but since this is a forum for discussing gaming (including play styles as well as design), this is an appropriate place to call him out on this. Lots of GMs and Players do things because they haven't really thought through the consequences (mind-caulk, Oberoni) and they need to be challenged. If Kaelik thinks critically about his position, I think he'll determine that it is based exclusively on his personal bias and as such is generally bad for the game - just like if his personal bias was against flask rogues.

[Stubbazubba]

"Cecillia Gimenez is a failed artist, like Hitler." When you read that, do you think I am accusing Cecillia Gimenez of a restoration attempt so terrible it put eleven million people in concentration camps? Do you think I am saying that I feel the same way about Cecillia Gimenez's shitty restoration of the Ecce Homo that I do about the atrocities of Nazi Germany? Or maybe, just maybe, do you think I am saying that Hitler was a failed artist, and that Cecillia Gimenez is a failed artist? "Littering is a crime, like murder." When you read that, do you think I am trying to make a poignant statement about how tossing cans out your car window is killing the planet? Do you think I am saying that I think people should get 25 to life for dropping their cigarette butts on the ground? Or maybe, just maybe, do you think I am saying that littering is a crime, and murder is a crime?

Actually no, all those examples are humorously bad analogies because of the radical difference in the examples that you are using. If you are playing them as straight analogies, you are analogizing wrong. Whatever trait you are trying to compare is totally lost in the absurdity of your examples. Two things technically sharing one common trait does not a good analogy make, and insisting that any comparison of any two things is limited only to the strict dictionary definition similarities is nigh-illiterate levels of stupid.

Seriously, we have whole joke pages of bad analogies that you are now defending:

McBride fell 12 stories, hitting the pavement like a Hefty Bag filled with vegetable soup.

From the attic came an unearthly howl. The whole scene had an eerie, surreal quality, like when you're on vacation in another city and "Jeopardy" comes on at 7 p.m. instead of 7:30.

Her hair glistened in the rain like nose hair after a sneeze.

The hailstones leaped from the pavement, just like maggots when you fry them in hot grease.

The politician was gone but unnoticed, like the period after the Dr. on a Dr Pepper can.

His thoughts tumbled in his head, making and breaking alliances like underpants in a dryer without Cling Free.

This entire argument is a radical revisioning of analogies and I have no idea why you continue to pursue it like a magical serial rapist in a slasher flick pursuing a transgender virgin.

Analogies are not statements of equivalency. They are limited scope comparisons, and the scope in which Kaelik brought up rape is completely unambiguous (it is a thing GM's are justified in saying no to and people don't want in their game).

But one thing being justified doesn't mean another thing is, so you can't analogize that way and expect the level of justification to transfer.

Deaddmwalking accused Kaelik of iron-fisted tyranny for being outright dismissive of players asking to attempt a thing, and Kaelik quoted that exact part of deaddmwalking's post and responded by pointing out something that 99% of GM's are going to be outright dismissive of without anyone shouting iron-fisted tyranny over.

Deliberately stripping away context and making a specific statement a general one and then disproving the general one is called strawmanning.

Edit:

I am awestruck that Kaelik says the GM is entitled to do whatever he wants in accordance with his preferences, and has no need to justify anything he does, because it makes sense in one case (rape), so it must be universally true. I actually think Kaelik was largely trolling at that point, but I am also awestruck that so many people are now lining up to support this. No, just because it's perfectly fine for a GM to ban rape does not make it perfectly fine for a GM to ban literally anything or everything else. For pity's sake, how are we still having this conversation four pages later?

[TheFlatline]

This thread has illustrated to me that we need a rape version of Godwin's Law.

Jesus.

[Username17]

The problem with his analogy is that violation of our moral code is considered a pretty acceptable thing to game around not through.

No. The problem is you need to stop being such a dumb asshole and shut the fuck up. That is the problem. The problem is 100% that all you dumb assholes won't stop talking. That you won't stop doubling down on this inane bullshit. Fuck you. Shut up. Walk away with whatever dignity you can muster.



Look, Kaelik said exactly why he used the analogy he did. He used it because he could not think of one other fucking thing that one of you dumb assholes wouldn't attempt to die on the hill of "that isn't bad enough to kick out of a game." He couldn't think of one fucking solitary thing, because the truth is that there genuinely isn't anything else that can get you dumb assholes to agree is over the line. Not. One. Fucking. Thing. We proved that when another option was mentioned and I didn't even have time to smell my own fart before one of you dumb assholes popped up like a whack-a-mole to stake that example out as the hill to die on for not being a thing that shouldn't be in a game. Fucking hell.

So Kaelik, having found the one fucking example in the entire universe that you dumb assholes will agree is bad enough to be a thing people are justified in banning from an RPG table, has found a wall of noise that you dumb assholes are whining that the example is too bad. And he should have picked an example that was less bad so you could get your raging argument erections out and argue that the example wasn't bad enough like you wanted to.

Well guess what? Fuck. You. Take your made up fainting couch and smelling salts and stuff them up your entire ass. The example isn't important, you're just being a bunch of shit weasels who refuse to engage with the structure or contents of the argument at hand. Choke on pig taint you dishonest lazy fuckers.

Here's the bottom line: you don't have the numbers to beat a dragon in any sort of basic combat maneuver contest that the rules organically generate unless you have a special ability or some very specific bonuses. You just fucking don't. Dragons have bigger numbers than you do at the levels they appear. That's what they do. If a player asks to do a thing that their character lacks the abilities or the numbers to do, that is bullshit. And if the MC lets them do it, that's double bullshit. It's special pleading from the player, and it's offensive favoritism from the MC. And if you don't have a problem with that, fuck you - you're obviously part of the problem.

Should there be ways to cling onto a dragon and stab it in the back of the head? Sure. And you'll note that K and I did make some. But you'll also note that people don't get to do it just for being whatever level. Dragons have a higher BAB than you do at the level they appear. You need a means to gain The Edge to make it a viable life goal. And you have to pick up some pretty serious bonuses to not get thrown off, because Dragons still have pretty nasty numbers for tearing you off.

So take your cheese slicer that you're attempting to take to Kaelik's argument and apply it to your left nipple. That would be a way more productive use of your time and a much more entertaining product for the rest of us to watch than having more of you dumb assholes trying to outlogic fucking Kaelik. He's an actual fucking lawyer, and you are never ever going to beat him on a god damn technicality.

-Username17

[OgreBattle]

This thread has illustrated to me that we need a rape version of Godwin's Law.

Jesus.

Google search brought up interesting results on the frequency of that word being used on TGD, it tends to be paired with 'ape'

sigh I really dislike it when fanboys shriek like raped apes the way this guy is doing.

if you do shit like uncommon/common/rare then people will scream like raped apes that people are able to buy extra power. Then the munchkins, the only people who'll like this scheme, will also scream like raped apes when DMs ban the more powerful cards from their games.

Another ripe target really is curbing military spending. Which is just not possible without nationalizing the defense industry and/or reducing the size and scope of the military. This is probably not very feasible though because people will scream like raped apes at the first administration that actually goes through with this. I suppose that the 'best' way to handle this is to do this after the second midterms in a two-term Presidency when the successor looks all but assured.

The problem comes when people aren't willing to put in the effort die like the gimps they are and have the audacity to blame the people who are component for their failure. Of course given how much DMs coddle players most people only realize they are gimps after years of playing and then they start screaming like raped apes about "dirty powergamers".

I'm dead serious. Since 4E started, there has been no good 4E change that wasn't been kicked around the errata boards for some time. And oftentimes they just flat-out ignore it; were you around for the Barbarian Playtest? People complained about shit like Hurricane of Blades months in advance and not only did they publish it nearly as-is but actually change the wording--so they actually looked at the power at least twice and thought it was okay despite the open playtest. Even though it's by far the most damaging single-target power in the game. It took some time after the PHB2 was released for them to fix it, meanwhile the Errata boards were screaming like raped apes all the while.

For example: the tournament community's obsession with wavedashing. I wouldn't mind them having a mechanic that's like wavedashing for future games, but Super Smash Bros.'s biggest selling point is that you can figure out 95% of what your character is supposed to do or can do after 10 minutes of playing. Wavedashing is a very advanced technique that takes hours of practice just to start being able to do and days to start being able to apply usefully; it's no surprise that Brawl took that out. Yet Melee holdovers scream like raped apes about it and it makes them look bad.

...and some bear world stuff

[deaddmwalking]

Should there be ways to cling onto a dragon and stab it in the back of the head? Sure. And you'll note that K and I did make some. But you'll also note that people don't get to do it just for being whatever level. Dragons have a higher BAB than you do at the level they appear. You need a means to gain The Edge to make it a viable life goal. And you have to pick up some pretty serious bonuses to not get thrown off, because Dragons still have pretty nasty numbers for tearing you off.

And that's what I want. Lago and Kaelik find that some violation of immersion and think it's dumb under any circumstances, including if the rules allow it. At least, if I'm not conflating their positions. And that's bullshit. Sure, it's his right, but it's still lame as fuck. But I do agree that I need to shut the fuck up about it. I'm sorry for the derail.

[MGuy]

The problem with his analogy is that violation of our moral code is considered a pretty acceptable thing to game around not through.

Stuff

-Username17

Most of this is an argument against stuff no one is arguing for. It was already asked but who are you arguing against? No one is talking about ignoring the numbers. No one is talking about giving anyone 'special treatment'. Seriously, what the fuck upsetting you? People arguing against Lago and kaelik's position because they both specifically said they don't want it to be possible at all. kaelik took it a step further and compared it to having rape in the game. Yes that's ridiculous and the fact that he had to bring up such a ridiculous analogue to try and make his case makes it worthy of mocking and derision. The fact that you (and apparently DSM) want to continue to defend the stupid analogy that has been pointed out as being unfit (for what should be obvious reasons) is bizarre.

So what the fuck are you on about?

[virgil]

See! The first person who talks about it thinks that kidnapping players is totally fine. Aside from rape, I can't seem to find literally even a single thing that these people will agree is a bad thing, even things that are clearly obviously bad for the game.

That's part of the problem. There is so damn much noise, I can't even tell what you're against. Getting to hang onto the dragon because you offered the DM a blowjob is bad, and I'll be against it. I'll even be against rules that let you do it are through "Be Awesome (Ex): Once every 1d4 rounds, you can do something totally radical." I won't support the stance that the Grab On rules in Tome are fundamentally bad, however.

The physical mechanics that allow one to kidnap both exist and are unobjectionable in d20; I mean, the dragon needs to carry off the princess. Using them to specifically have PCs abducted is an application of the rules that I will certainly object to and agree as bad for a game.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Lago and Kaelik find that some violation of immersion and think it's dumb under any circumstances,

Look, I bowed out of this thread because it became obvious that you guys wanted to nitpick Kaelik with your twee 'OMG RAAAAPE' escape hatch, but I can't ignore this.

I said that if you wanted to do it then you need to point to a specific rule that let you do it and then I'd have no choice but to accept it. In fact that was my first post in this thread.

What's more, I don't have a problem with people doing it in abstract. If you're Hercules or Servant Rider or Spider-Man or some shit and you asked to cling to and fight a dragon in a game where there weren't explicit rules for this, I'd try to accommodate you. And you know why? Because those characters actually have abilities you can extrapolate from. I'm only against mundane characters doing this stunt without explicit rules.

And you know what? That doesn't just apply to this example, either. It's a general principle. There's a fucking space limit in a TTRPG and you can't exhaustively detail every stunt a player might want to do. So even if you did write out rules for how a VAH could do some impromptu dragon riding, you're not going to have rules for jumping after and catching up to someone who's falling or staying onboard a moving training train or whatever the fuck.

[Stubbazubba]

Here's the bottom line: you don't have the numbers to beat a dragon in any sort of basic combat maneuver contest that the rules organically generate unless you have a special ability or some very specific bonuses. You just fucking don't. Dragons have bigger numbers than you do at the levels they appear. That's what they do. If a player asks to do a thing that their character lacks the abilities or the numbers to do, that is bullshit. And if the MC lets them do it, that's double bullshit. It's special pleading from the player, and it's offensive favoritism from the MC. And if you don't have a problem with that, fuck you - you're obviously part of the problem.

Should there be ways to cling onto a dragon and stab it in the back of the head? Sure. And you'll note that K and I did make some. But you'll also note that people don't get to do it just for being whatever level. Dragons have a higher BAB than you do at the level they appear. You need a means to gain The Edge to make it a viable life goal. And you have to pick up some pretty serious bonuses to not get thrown off, because Dragons still have pretty nasty numbers for tearing you off.

Frank, how many times does it have to be pointed out to you that no one is disagreeing with this? That no one is asking for special treatment? That no one is asking for rules to be bent or numbers to be ignored? The Tome rules for doing exactly this were first brought up as a counter-argument against Kaelik. Neither MGuy, deaddm, or myself have said anything more than "A non-zero chance to climb a dragon somehow is not something that should be banned in a fantasy game." Kaelik's entire argument that you are fapping to is that the results that the Tome rules generate, where a Fighter has some chance of clinging to a dragon in the right circumstances, makes him uncomfortable and he would not let it succeed in spite of the rules. And you are now defending that position. You are strawmanning everyone but Kaelik and then making an argument that Kaelik has not made (and in fact he has rejected) and saying he's right. You are completely confused, and your faith in Kaelik is unnerving and undeserved.

Edit: Lago's right, he has consistently at least said that he would not autofail an attempt if there were explicit rules, just that he would if there weren't explicit rules. I still think that's grognardy and unfair, but it is not anywhere near the extreme position that Kaelik is apparently successfully passing off as perfectly defensible.

[Username17]

Stubbazubba, you're a strawmanning asshole and need to shut the fuck up. Just. Walk. Away.

-Username17

[Stubbazubba]

Oh, man. I am licked. Guys, I've been soundly thumped here. You'll have to carry on without me.

[MGuy]

Yep this is how Frank gets once he thoroughly shoves his foot in his mouth. I'm surprised he didn't "threaten" to put you on the dreaded 'ignore' list.

Edit: As a side note, I specifically said there should be a rule 'for' it but Lago went on a whole thing about it'd be bad to 'make' a rule for it because slippery slope.

[deaddmwalking]

Lago and Kaelik find that some violation of immersion and think it's dumb under any circumstances,

Look, I bowed out of this thread because it became obvious that you guys wanted to nitpick Kaelik with your twee 'OMG RAAAAPE' escape hatch, but I can't ignore this.

I said that if you wanted to do it then you need to point to a specific rule that let you do it and then I'd have no choice but to accept it. In fact that was my first post in this thread.

What's more, I don't have a problem with people doing it in abstract. If you're Hercules or Servant Rider or Spider-Man or some shit and you asked to cling to and fight a dragon in a game where there weren't explicit rules for this, I'd try to accommodate you. And you know why? Because those characters actually have abilities you can extrapolate from. I'm only against mundane characters doing this stunt without explicit rules.

And you know what? That doesn't just apply to this example, either. It's a general principle. There's a fucking space limit in a TTRPG and you can't exhaustively detail every stunt a player might want to do. So even if you did write out rules for how a VAH could do some impromptu dragon riding, you're not going to have rules for jumping after and catching up to someone who's falling or staying onboard a moving training train or whatever the fuck.

And I'm sorry that I did conflate your positions (the immediate following part that you quoted). As you say, you've been out of the conversation for a while and I wasn't sure how much of that was because you accepted Kaelik's position and were content to let him 'carry the flag'.

I do think that a GM should generally determine what factors would make a check more or less likely to succeed and, if the character has numbers that put it in the realm of possibility, make a check. Mundane characters can skydive down to a person that is free-falling and potentially catch them before they hit the ground. Spiderman and Superman are just really good at that and aren't even likely to fail. It doesn't mean that Keanu Reeves' Stunt Person doesn't have the skills to succeed 50% of the time. The game (IMHO) is better when you try to figure out how to make it work and allow players to try.

[Pedantic]

So, terrible rape analogies and accusation of logical fallacy aside, this is fundamentally an argument about whether or not jumping on the back of dragons to stab them with swords is stupid or not, right?

Could we maybe move the argument back a layer and expand on that? I'm not yet persuaded one way or another on that point. On the one hand, it is something that feels appropriately in genre and Shadow of the Colossus was a great game.

On the other hand, dragons are smart and terrifying and frankly jumping on a giant monster and staying there sounds really hard under most circumstances.

It's clearly a pretty subjective Rule of Awesome kind of thing, right? Which side should rules fall on.

[Shiritai]

Frank, how many times does it have to be pointed out to you that no one is disagreeing with this? That no one is asking for special treatment? That no one is asking for rules to be bent or numbers to be ignored? The Tome rules for doing exactly this were first brought up as a counter-argument against Kaelik. Neither MGuy, deaddm, or myself have said anything more than "A non-zero chance to climb a dragon somehow is not something that should be banned in a fantasy game." Kaelik's entire argument that you are fapping to is that the results that the Tome rules generate, where a Fighter has some chance of clinging to a dragon in the right circumstances, makes him uncomfortable and he would not let it succeed in spite of the rules. And you are now defending that position.

Yeah, you're a fucking liar. Here's what Kaelik actually said:

[quote="deaddmwalking']Today is the day I learned that Kaelik shits all over player agency worse than Viking Helmets.

Even if it's not a dragon, fighting on top of an unfriendly beast should be something that could happen. Legolas did it with the Oliphants. Balance, Ride, Grapple - use whatever you think makes sense. It's to bad the rules don't have it, but that's no reason to go full auto-fail.

Uh... no. Legolas used it to do it to a creature that was unintelligent, not actively trying to throw him, and had a fucking basket for people to sit in on top, and ropes hanging down and it was stupid even then, and he only got away with it because everyone knows that LOTR elves are magicly magic.

It does not follow that you can jump off a cliff and ride giant dragon that is smarter than you, stronger than you, and tries to throw you off.

Look at the grab on rules.

"You may attempt to shake your opponent off as an attack action by making a check with a bonus equal to your melee attack or Escape Artist and a DC of 10 + the greatest of your opponent's BAB, Climb Ranks, or Ride Ranks."

A CR 10 dragon is attempting to make a DC 24ish at most attack with his +24 attack bonus. He succeeds on a 2. He might arguably even succeed on a 1.

Your definition of player agency is stupid Benoist agency. It isn't shitting on player agency when I don't let them track the dragon, then hide inside a waterfall and shoot arrows at it while it sits in front of the waterfall letting them.

They don't have the ability to do the things they claim to do. So they can't do them.

I mean fuck, did you shit on Spike's player agency by letting me put out torches and see him and cast icewall?

No, because player agency doesn't mean ignoring the monster's abilities.[/quote]

Notice that even the tome rules support Kaelik's position; a vanilla fighter is not going to be riding an unwilling dragon of appropriate CR.

[zugschef]

This thread is like a barrel full of unsucked edicks.

[RadiantPhoenix]

I think there should be monsters that are "big dumb critters that even Bob the overweight 9th level cleric can climb up and stab in the throat with his +1 Spear without using spells."

They are obviously not the same thing as 3e's dragons, but I think they should exist.

[Whipstitch]

So, at what CR and ride skill should halflings be allowed to forcibly mount half-orcs?