Well, Mike Mearls got promoted. Any hope for 5e?

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 5:41 pm

Yep wrote:The problem with fallacies is people attempt to use them in the place of actual arguments. This is especially bad with fallacies that aren't actually fallacies but instead were made up for specific circumstances.

For instance, if I came up with the Yep Fallacy wherein an argument is invalid if it critiques me, that's great, I can apply it all day long to avoid arguments, but it is to actual debate what shadzar is to the English language.

Are you suggesting that it is better to have a back and forth around an argument based on a fallacy than to just usher the argument aside after revealing exactly what kind of fallacy it is? If you came up with a "yep fallacy" based around the retarded premise that you are always right, then you're just blowing smoke out of your ass because you are, of course, not always right.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 4:52 am

on a roll and then dropped the ball a-fucking-gain...

rules cant make or break DMs, nor can they players.

the games rules cannot fix people "getting along".

D&D is not a source of therapy for reprobates!

seriously...like MANY others, not seeing the forest for the trees.

Mearls was a serious rules lawyer and seems will always be....

CapnTthePirateG · Post by **CapnTthePirateG** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 5:43 am

Ah, new fail. Apparently using the rules to defend yourself from a dick waving asshole is bullshit. Thank you, Gygax, thank you. You should be proud of the way you got people to pay for books they didn't need cuz they can play Magical Tea Party.

Shadzar will probably compose a confusing rant about how I don't understand the special purpose of D&D and can get my Thetans removed for $500. We will make fun of this. He will deride us for having lost our way and having strayed from the unseen nonsensical Will of Gygax. Go us. Someone should point out Mearls and shadzar are saying the same thing (I think).

It's a good thing Mearls doesn't do shit in this article. Good to know money is going somewhere in this economy where people don't have jobs. Seriously, it's all "we need to balance the rules", but how are we going to do this Mearls? You don't know? Then stop designing games.

Also, I suspect "right level of complexity" means "extremely simple with no stupid unneeded crap". Mearls doesn't do this.

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 5:55 am

Apparently using the rules to defend yourself from a dick waving asshole is bullshit.

shadzar is retarded but so are you for saying this

CapnTthePirateG · Post by **CapnTthePirateG** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 5:58 am

Psychic Robot wrote:
Apparently using the rules to defend yourself from a dick waving asshole is bullshit.
shadzar is retarded but so are you for saying this

Clarification?

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 6:01 am

the rules are not for "defending yourself from a dick waving asshole." if you are "defending" yourself with the rules, then the game has failed. you've gone from playing the game to fighting the DM, and you're not going to have fun. if the DM is a "dick waving asshole," he will be a "dick waving asshole" with or without the assent of the rules

the rules are for clarifying disputes and adjudicating things. they are not a defensive fortification to hunker behind while the DM blasts rape cannons at you

CapnTthePirateG · Post by **CapnTthePirateG** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 6:10 am

but in the event you are playing with a dick waver, you aren't having fun anyway, so why not fight? It's not like we have any other fortifications against the rape cannon anyway.

icyshadowlord · Post by **icyshadowlord** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 6:13 am

Then what is the solution to a shitty DM? I do believe kicking his ass isn't really the best option, but just leaving the game feels like letting him win.

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 6:16 am

icyshadowlord wrote:Then what is the solution to a shitty DM? I do believe kicking his ass isn't really the best option, but just leaving the game feels like letting him win.

Hostile takeover of the game. When he makes an unfair judgment, you go "No, actually, that doesn't happen. Y'all, here's what really happens. You....Okay, roll reflex. DC 15. Hey, you rolled a seventeen! Sweet, you avoid the swinging blade trap."

When he protests, you go "Shuttup, you're no longer the DM."

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 6:35 am

Then what is the solution to a shitty DM?

trolling him really hard.

icyshadowlord · Post by **icyshadowlord** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 6:41 am

Are you sure that works when the rest of the group is NOT on your side? My own group backstabbed me once when my DM was being an asshole, but only towards me.

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 6:43 am

if the group is not on your side, troll them, too.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 7:02 am

Psychic Robot wrote:if you are "defending" yourself with the rules, then the game has failed.

no, the group has failed...again the game and its "rules" cannot be used for psychological or sociological therapy.

why do so many people play with people they dont like or get along well with enough to game?

icyshadowlord · Post by **icyshadowlord** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 7:08 am

Psychic Robot wrote:if the group is not on your side, troll them, too.

That sounds fun, but ineffective. I could give it a shot if the DM decides to wave his dick around again though.

K · Post by K » Tue Sep 13, 2011 7:26 am

Why do people pretend that good rules don't prevent misunderstandings and bad feelings at the table?

I mean, there really are reasonable people who game who can have a rules discussion where a simple comment to the DM of "hey, the rules say something different" actually has the DM reconsidering his position and going with the Rules as Written because that's what everyone has agreed to play.

I mean, rules only exist to prevent unintentional dickery. It's not like any rule rule can prevent full-frontal dickery, but a good ruleset prevents hard feelings because everyone knows what's going on.

I mean, even making up rules on the fly should involve a discussion with the players about what the new rule should be, and every good DM I've had has done that.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 7:38 am

K wrote:a good ruleset prevents hard feelings because everyone knows what's going on.

good post, save this part is not fully correct. maybe with your group it works that way, but have you ever seen someone who clearly understood something different form the rest of the group when they all use the same books? it CAN lead to hard feelings or broken friendships.

i saw this once at one of those LFR or LGH? i dont remember, but al but one person understood a rule one way, while a single person understood it another, and rather than accept the rest of the groups method under their "majority rule", they caused disruption for the entire place.

this also disproves "good" rules can prevent unintentional "dickery".

again a reason why people SHOULD talk about thing, but the time is not always in the middle of the game to stop if for everyone else.

get to know people BEFORE you game with them, and actually discus the game not just in anecdotes Bob the envoker was so awesome, but discuss how you play the game, to prevent real life social conflicts that are a result of the real life interactions.

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 12:33 pm

K wrote:I mean, even making up rules on the fly should involve a discussion with the players about what the new rule should be, and every good DM I've had has done that.

Exactly. There's a big difference between when the DM states up front that he wants to use X, Y, Z house rules in the game for some reason, and when in the middle of combat, suddenly you find out that X applies to the action you just took with no warning. If you play any other game, when someone changes rules on the fly, people get pissed.

Swordslinger · Post by **Swordslinger** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 12:41 pm

K wrote:Why do people pretend that good rules don't prevent misunderstandings and bad feelings at the table?

The drawback to comprehensive rules is that they can create misunderstandings too. I've had players that thought mage armor stacked with regular armor, or didn't understand what line of effect was and all kinds of crap. Then they want to look up the rule, which halts the game while the books are consulted for obscure rules.

The advantage of DM adjudication is that it's fast.

Wrathzog · Post by **Wrathzog** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 12:58 pm

K wrote:I mean, rules only exist to prevent unintentional dickery.

This is exactly what I've been waiting to hear (read). Thank you.

Swordslinger wrote:I've had players that thought mage armor stacked with regular armor

This one is understandable as I'm about 90% sure that mage armor DID stack with regular armor in Neverwinter Nights. Someone coming from the video game to the tabletop is bound to get confused.

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 1:14 pm

Swordslinger wrote:
K wrote:Why do people pretend that good rules don't prevent misunderstandings and bad feelings at the table?
The drawback to comprehensive rules is that they can create misunderstandings too. I've had players that thought mage armor stacked with regular armor, or didn't understand what line of effect was and all kinds of crap. Then they want to look up the rule, which halts the game while the books are consulted for obscure rules.

The advantage of DM adjudication is that it's fast.

Well, there's always taking the time to at least read the relevant parts of the rules before the game starts...

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 1:29 pm

Wrathzog wrote:Someone coming from the video game to the tabletop is bound to get confused.

the thing is that NO other game format will let you move over to D&D streamlesly bringing with you the concepts of another type of game in another medium.

NWN could let ANYTHING stack if you created your character within the design portion and saved it for use in play, as you can create ANYTHING ON anything.

time stop arrow, that reversed damage done to you, and healed you for double for example....yeah NWN you could create GOD characters in....not a very good baseline for moving to the TTRPG from.

fectin · Post by **fectin** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 1:34 pm

Try this:

"I'd prefer not to bog down the session right now. Instead, let's wrap up a few minutes early today, and we'll find the exact rule and use it correctly from next time on. For now though, to keep the game going, I'd like to rule that __________. Is that fair?"

...remembering that even you are sometimes wrong. Also, it cuts both ways. If moving on with the game is more important, consider just doing it wrong for that session. If you're right, don't gloat about it. In fact, you should probably never say "I was right," even if someone asks (say something like "when we looked, the rules said______"). Do apologize if you're wrong, though.

hogarth · Post by **hogarth** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 1:43 pm

K wrote:Why do people pretend that good rules don't prevent misunderstandings and bad feelings at the table?

I always think it's bizarre when people start arguing that no rule at all is better than a good rule, because you could always use the good rule as a house rule (or something like that -- it's hard to follow the "logic").

Stubbazubba · Post by **Stubbazubba** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 2:31 pm

fectin wrote:Try this:

"I'd prefer not to bog down the session right now. Instead, let's wrap up a few minutes early today, and we'll find the exact rule and use it correctly from next time on. For now though, to keep the game going, I'd like to rule that __________. Is that fair?"

...remembering that even you are sometimes wrong. Also, it cuts both ways. If moving on with the game is more important, consider just doing it wrong for that session. If you're right, don't gloat about it. In fact, you should probably never say "I was right," even if someone asks (say something like "when we looked, the rules said______"). Do apologize if you're wrong, though.

You can also spice that up with "If, when we check it at end of session and the rule would have been beneficial to you, I'll give you additional XP to compensate you for not getting the full effect of your feat/taking that hit when you otherwise would not have/whatever else, and then adjudicate it as written from now on." You can usually find even a less-than-ideal player's 'price' to go along with you.

Hieronymous Rex · Post by **Hieronymous Rex** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 2:41 pm

Two minor points:

First, while rules can never prevent GM dickery outright, they can in some cases reduce it. For example, open rolling doesn't let the GM declare whatever number he wants and certain abilities (such as Divination, No Save attacks, and very high numbers) are harder for the GM to ignore without being called out, as opposed to spells granting saves (the monsters might just all "roll well").

Second, I don't understand the advice given by fectin (and others, other times and boards) that if a rule cannot be found immediately, the matter should be resolved after the session. Assuming that it is known that a relevant rule exists, why wait? Is the system you're using so byzantine that it takes more than a minute or two to resolve any given issue?