Oberoni Vs. The Goldfish

[Oberoni]

I mean nobody plays the RAW anymore, so why the fvck do we even care about the RAW?

The only real shame is that we don't have a big list of mandatory nerfs so everyone can be on the same page, because we really should.

You answered your own question.

The RAW is the same, common reference point for all of us. The better we understand the RAW, the better we can adjust it for our individual games. After all, nobody plays the RAW--but nobody uses the same house rules, either.

[PhoneLobster]

As far as I follow the gold fish thing is not "Since the potential rules exploit would destroy the game, this rule 0 must be made"

It in fact sounds to me more like "Since the potential rules exploit would destroy the game, rule 0 WILL be used, in a uniform objective manner obvious to anyone, and it will work successfully"

And that is not a valid claim, in total or in part.

If it were valid we would not need formal rules at all, because everything is obvious to any DM not an idiot, the methodology always identical (meaning agreement to and knowledge of the rules set is automatically assumed for all players) and it always results in a good outcome.

After all its the final proof that rule 0 doesn't actually work, because if it did we wouldn't need any other rules.

[RandomCasualty]

1106745479[/unixtime]]
You answered your own question.

The RAW is the same, common reference point for all of us. The better we understand the RAW, the better we can adjust it for our individual games. After all, nobody plays the RAW--but nobody uses the same house rules, either.

Right, the original goal of using the RAW is that it's a common reference point, but the problem is that it really isn't since nobody actually uses it.

What we really need is a compiled list of house rules that we could all agree on as a reference point. Even if we don't necessarily agree with all the rules changes, at the very least, fix some of the most problematic things and then go from there.

It in fact sounds to me more like "Since the potential rules exploit would destroy the game, rule 0 WILL be used, in a uniform objective manner obvious to anyone, and it will work successfully"

And that is not a valid claim, in total or in part.

As for this, yes it's true that rule 0 may or may not work, depending on how it's done. However in most cases where the goldfish mentality is employed are cases where rule 0 simply can't make things worse because the game cannot exist without it.

Rule 0 isn't infallible, but there are times when you use rule 0 and it can't make things worse than the RAW alternative, because the RAW alternative means you have no game at all.

[Oberoni]

What we really need is a compiled list of house rules that we could all agree on as a reference point. Even if we don't necessarily agree with all the rules changes, at the very least, fix some of the most problematic things and then go from there.

...and since that will not happen, we mise well just stick to the reference point we do have: the default rules.

Besides, I can transfer knowledge on discussion of the RAW anywhere, and adapt it to any group I play with.

After all, I do more than just discuss D&D with people on the Den--sometimes I discuss it on other message boards, and sometimes...get ready for this--I play D&D with non-Denners.

[Falgund]

In my opinion, the "DM is not a Goldfish" is (should be?) used when and only when someone seems like he will try to use a 'well known broken RAW' in his/her next game.
(Now, 'well known broken RAW' definition may vary)

This means it should never be used during RAW discussions, but during "Help me choose my next sorcerer spell" it can be perfectly valid.

Per exemple, if someone says "You should take Planar Binding, thus you will be able to milk Efreets for free wishes". By the RAW this works perfectly, but if you think many DM will not accept it, you can respond that the "DM is not a Goldfish".


It's the same as saying "Be careful, most DM does not accept to mix FR and Dragon Lance PrC", except for balance reasons, not 'fluff' reasons.

[grey_muse]

1106760863[/unixtime]]

What we really need is a compiled list of house rules that we could all agree on as a reference point. Even if we don't necessarily agree with all the rules changes, at the very least, fix some of the most problematic things and then go from there.

...and since that will not happen, we mise well just stick to the reference point we do have: the default rules.

Why won't it happen?

I mean, granted, there's not going to be a list of house rules that everyone uses identically, even among a gaming community as large as Nifty. But you can certainly compile a list of house rules that are *commonly* used, and then discuss those as options.

In doing so, you effectively create something of an "extended RAW", which is subjected to scrutiny by a community to help reject brokenness. And if you need to explain to someone else a particular house rule, you can just say, "We use rules #1-5 and #10 from this URL," and be done.

I agree with your point about common ground, but unless you're talking about the SRD, that's a fallacy of its own. If you look around the WotC Min/max boards where I lived for so long, you'll find references to a hundred and one different sources that are non-core and frequently badly balanced. Unless I want to potentially include every variant rule out of every book WotC produces (no thank you) then the RAW they use isn't the RAW I have available to me.

[Oberoni]

Here's a challenge, then: Someone start up a thread asking us to compare commonly-used houserules, and see where it goes.

I don't even care if we hit a dozen commonly-used rules, though; it doesn't matter. Learning how to play a game using the "3.Den" rules will do all of jack crap for me 99% of my D&D-related time.

[Draco_Argentum]

Whoo, people useing the term stealth nerf makes me happy.

[rapanui]

Hell yeah, it's the most common problem with 'Holy Book' DMs that nonetheless want to make everyone feel equal.