The Gaming Den

One thing that still baffles me is many poster's resistance to accepting a literal reading of game text. It seems these people have great problems with accepting an infinite loop that will grant the user great advantage.

For example: Turning into a shambling mound and taking lightning damage grants hit dice and hp that don't go away when returning to normal form. Turning into a black pudding and getting slashed is an excellent way to clone yourself, etc. etc. etc.

Why is there such resistance towards accepting things like the above, and why do the people who point such things out, getting called names such as trolls, munchkins, etc. ?

I welcome your thoughts,
Bill

"It's not a problem if it doesn't work that way, so it clearly doesn't work that way."

I think it's latent incredulity.

"They couldn't possibly have meant for that to be true, so it isn't true."

Denial. They don't want it to work that way, so it can't.

Note that it's perfectly reasonable to rule up-front that it will not work that way in the game (you may need to be general), or to ask for gentleman's agreements.

However it is indeed odd to see something that says X and say "No, it says not X!" as opposed to "I think it's retarded that it says X.". And to accuse people who read it as X of being bad people is just stupid.

I don't think it's so much that a DM can't believe that it would work, but that a DM would actually think a player would be able to do so without having rocks fall.

Sure, these things will work in theory. Using them to try and break a DM's game? Not so easy.

Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp wrote: Why is there such resistance towards accepting things like the above, and why do the people who point such things out, getting called names such as trolls, munchkins, etc. ?

The basic denial is pretty much that some people try to play the spirit of the rules more than the letter of the rules, so you get a lot of arguments like "obviously they didn't intend it to work that way, so you must be reading it wrong."

As far as calling people munchkins, generally that comes from the idea that they think you're going to try this stuff in an actual game, and honestly a lot of times if you're going to try something like pun-pun in a real game, you really are a munchkin.

Apalala wrote:I don't think it's so much that a DM can't believe that it would work, but that a DM would actually think a player would be able to do so without having rocks fall.

Sure, these things will work in theory. Using them to try and break a DM's game? Not so easy.

Honestly, it doesn't break the game. It just makes a game that is unexpected.

The halfling rogue who kills the human king shouldn't result in the DM having a hissy-fit, and giving us with the original webcomic where this phrase was first used.

I mean... your setting never had assassination before? Honestly, holy crap, your setting is pretty dumb. Why wouldn't a King be able to afford something like a scroll of ressurection, and just have the halfing captured, tortured and killed; and her companions incarcerated, and questioned with magical methods (Circle of Truth, only if the characters lower their will saves, and answer questions will they be believed). Seriously, it's that people don't think outside of a very narrow range of ideas.

D&D land is crazy. Kings can just live until they die of old age. Poison and being killed isn't a truly permanent thing for them. Only old age will kill something like a king.

Honestly, I give my players a pretty ample amount of power, and try to give them enough rope until they surprise me. Seeing new things is what I like about the game, and seeing things that are new, and work well even more so.

off topic... I love that Something Positive, mostly for the height at which the king gets stabbed...

Judging__Eagle wrote:

Apalala wrote:I don't think it's so much that a DM can't believe that it would work, but that a DM would actually think a player would be able to do so without having rocks fall.

Sure, these things will work in theory. Using them to try and break a DM's game? Not so easy.

Honestly, it doesn't break the game. It just makes a game that is unexpected.

The halfling rogue who kills the human king shouldn't result in the DM having a hissy-fit, and giving us with the original webcomic where this phrase was first used.

I mean... your setting never had assassination before? Honestly, holy crap, your setting is pretty dumb. Why wouldn't a King be able to afford something like a scroll of ressurection, and just have the halfing captured, tortured and killed; and her companions incarcerated, and questioned with magical methods (Circle of Truth, only if the characters lower their will saves, and answer questions will they be believed). Seriously, it's that people don't think outside of a very narrow range of ideas.

D&D land is crazy. Kings can just live until they die of old age. Poison and being killed isn't a truly permanent thing for them. Only old age will kill something like a king.

Honestly, I give my players a pretty ample amount of power, and try to give them enough rope until they surprise me. Seeing new things is what I like about the game, and seeing things that are new, and work well even more so.

I'm sorry, I guess I wasn't clear. When I said that rocks might fall, I meant that the dm would either flat out reject or punish exploitative behavior by the PCs, things like infinite wishes and Pun Pun. I understand how easy that is to confuse with halfling rogues killing kings. After all, that's what I automatically assume to if I ever hear someone mention falling rocks, whatever evidence to the contrary.

That comic is where the phrase "Rocks fall, everyone dies" comes from, that's the connection I see.

schpeelah wrote:That comic is where the phrase "Rocks fall, everyone dies" comes from, that's the connection I see.

(I was being sarcastic)

Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp wrote:Why is there such resistance towards accepting things like the above, and why do the people who point such things out, getting called names such as trolls, munchkins, etc.?

Most of the people who are going to respond that way can't assess the situation without thinking about it in a personal context. They're also not necessarily used to being rules- or design-minded, so there's not a lot of critical evaluation of the game.

So what they're really saying when they say "that can't happen" is "I wouldn't let that happen (if it were my game)." Since Rule 0 is implied, it doesn't matter what the rules say, and most people are going to jump to how the rules will get interpreted in practical play as opposed to discussing "game theory."

Most people don't really care if a game is well-designed if they can find a way to have fun playing it (or pretending to play it).

Archmage wrote:

Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp wrote:Why is there such resistance towards accepting things like the above, and why do the people who point such things out, getting called names such as trolls, munchkins, etc.?

Most of the people who are going to respond that way can't assess the situation without thinking about it in a personal context. They're also not necessarily used to being rules- or design-minded, so there's not a lot of critical evaluation of the game.

So what they're really saying when they say "that can't happen" is "I wouldn't let that happen (if it were my game)." Since Rule 0 is implied, it doesn't matter what the rules say, and most people are going to jump to how the rules will get interpreted in practical play as opposed to discussing "game theory."

Most people don't really care if a game is well-designed if they can find a way to have fun playing it (or pretending to play it).

Ah thank you. That helps a bunch!

People are fucking stupid, and they should feel stupid. Too many examples to name. Non sequitors are not valid arguments. Full fucking stop.

Quote from m recent DM:

"I can't explain RL to you, so how am I supposed to be able to explain the game world?"

-Crissa

Wow, Crissa, that's the worst cop-out ever on his/her part. The game world is described by the rules. Full stop. Anything the rules don't describe you're supposed to extrapolate from what the rules do describe. When the entire world in question is a construct that you have created inside your own mind, you had better know how every last bit of it works--or, more practically, be able to decide how it works whenever questions come up.

Cripes. At that rate, no one can DM unless they have an absolutely perfect knowledge of physics.

Somewhat more on topic: Glad you found my explanation helpful, Bill.

Also, sometimes the rules are genuinely unclear, and there is support for multiple interpretations.

Psychic Robot wrote:Also, sometimes the rules are genuinely unclear, and there is support for multiple interpretations.

For situations like that... I try to go back to basics. What things within the rules are like what the player is trying to do. Then see how those work, and see if I can use that in the game.

The "make shit up" method is bullshit, and any DM who "makes shit up" because they don't know what they are doing at the table is seriously, sad.