Me and the DMG

DangerousPuhson said:
This I MUST point out is the subjectivity addressed before. You cast bad light on later editions for something entirely out of their purview - Magic items can only ever proliferate a game via one of two inputs: 1) an uncreative module author, or 2) the DM. That's it, two sources - if you worry about magic items getting out of hand, those two are literally the only culprits to which blame/responsibility can be assigned. It's not the system. Don't blame the system for the failings of individuals.
Click to expand...
Don't get me wrong, I don't think the systems require it, I think it was part of the same mindset that led to consistently crappy modules. I place the blame on the people who designed the items, prestige classes, spells, powers or whatever. I have to run, but I may expand on this later.
 
DangerousPuhson said:
is I MUST point out is the subjectivity addressed before. You cast bad light on later editions for something entirely out of their purview.
Click to expand...
I think you may be using the word "subjectivity" in an uncommon way. It always strikes me as a an odd word-choice in the context of what you are saying.
 
I guess I don't connect individual perception with your counter-argument. Your point is logical, i.e. that's not a particular edition failing, so it's not fair to hang it on the edition (although, I would argue that's not really what Beoric did, he blamed them for lack of corrective effort), but I don't see how the individual's view of the world gets involved.

I think you just want to say, "your wrong", or "you have an axe to grind", but not "you're being subjective". Strikes me as odd.
 
Last edited:
My point is that the issue arising comes from a place of personal, anecdotal experience, rather than emerging as a consequence of universality.

For example, take this statement: "The fight is overpowered because my group didn't beat it"...
Is the fight truly, demonstrably overpowered (what I call "objective" or "factual"), or is the statement based on that particular group's specific experience (what I call "subjective" or "opinion")?

Similar statements include:
"Character customizations are encouraging bad habits because I've seen some people get too focused on that and not the game";
"Old systems are superior because they are better at making me feel like I did when I was younger/capture that retro feeling"; and most recently
"Modern systems are flooded with imbalance because my group comes across a lot of +1 magic items"
 
Last edited:
Human being are engines of subjectivity. We can't help be be that way. Everything comes through our senses. What we argue about all day and night are what exactly "the facts" are and logic is our slave. I think the notion of "consequence of universality" is, if I dare say it, in the eye-of-the-beholder (no idolatry implied) and probably what the whole debate is about anyway (i.e. you think it's universal and someone disagrees).

Again, I think it is more common for you to just say, "that's anecdotal" (e.g. Beoric's N=1) or "that's a logical fallacy" (i.e. "your wrong") and then try to point out the disconnect. But every time you bring up "subjectivity", I'm always lost.

( This feels like the time when I had to tell my Mother that she had been mispronouncing "jazzuci" her whole life. :) Miss you Ma. )
 
Just because humans employ subjectivity doesn't mean that objective facts are not a thing.

It's true if I say "the sky is grey" (subjectively, the sky is grey above me now). Conversely, it's true if I say "the sky is blue" (objectively, the default color of the sky during the day when weather is clear is blue, no matter where you are).

It's untrue if I say "the sky is always grey" or "the sky is blue where you are" - it's a subjectivity brought upon everyone as if universal fact. This is what I accuse these blanket statements against editions or character options (or whatever soup-of-the-day outrage) of being - subjective realities applied to condemn the whole.
 
Sorry, one small correction of a frequent misquote:

"Character customizations are orthogonal to the game and can cater to our vanity, so I think it's a mistake to emphasize them in the rules. I've seen people get way too focused on that on several occasions. In this case, I believe less is more."​

Also
  • I can't correct #2, because IIRC you're the only one to have ever said that.
  • Beroic can speak for himself about the hyperbole of #3.

I will add this --- you protect latter editions like a lioness protecting her cubs.

Yes. There are objective/measurable facts---and determining them is the purview of science: not D&D forums. The whole hobby jabber-jawing is about sharing subjective experiences and opinions of "what is good", or "what works well in adventure design". Science cannot help us there---except maybe with poll statistics...but that's mainly just ensemble-subjectivity.

Most folk are convinced their opinions are facts....and yet we can still learn things from each other.

And no two humans will ever know if they perceive the color "Blue" precisely the same way. Still we manage.
 
If you think people incapable of arguing over "the sky is blue where you are", then you've never had teenagers.
 
It was more or less what you were saying, but to be fair you did call it "valid criticism" and qualify it with "IMO", so I guess I was wrong to lump in it with the other absolutist views.
 
I read what he said very differently. Not being snarky. Seriously, COMPLETELY differently---as in: an-unrelated-sentence-written-by-a-different-author-with-a-foreign-message different.

Beoric said:
...that that what you think I think?
Click to expand...
Beroic! DId you steal a page from Malrex's book and post post while drunk drunk? ;P
 
Last edited:
@DangerousPuhson to be clear, I meant (and I think I said) that +1 swords are boring. I did not mean (or say) that the proliferation of +1 swords is inherently unbalancing, I meant (and said) that items and character options that have only a mechanical benefit with no in-world description are not inspiring, and that it is in my opinion a valid criticism of later editions that they used an increasing number of these.

By "valid criticism" I do not mean the criticism is correct (although I do think that), but I mean that the criticism is supportable.

And to be clear, I also think it is a wasted opportunity where it happens in older editions as well. The 1e DMG doesn't even have an entry for "+1 sword", just a listing on the treasure tables. How much more inspiring would it be if we were told that +1 swords were weapons of exceptional keenness and balance, crafted by the most skilled artisans and traditionally grifted by a liege lord when he knighted his vassal; and that it is common to have such weapons treated alchemically to prevent rusting and to preserve their edge, or to have them enchanted to glow upon command "that the knight might always walk in the light"?

And there are worse offenders than +1 swords. There are a few powers, feats and mechanical effects in 4e which are mechanically balanced, but which I cannot figure out how to describe in actual play - knocking a gelatinous cube prone comes to mind ("you, uh, trip the cube with your, uh, dagger, so it falls over. Don't forget, the archers now have a -2 penalty to hit it because, uh, it's sort of squished down a bit" - and to be clear, I don't allow this, this is a prime candidate for a houserule). And while I don't play 3e, I use it as source material enough to have seen feats that fall into this category.
 
Knocking it prone probably means you're damaging the gel structure that allows it to hold a semi-rigid shape. Take a hot knife and slice through the bottom of a jello cube sometime for an illustration of how this works.
 
Pseudoephedrine said:
Knocking it prone probably means you're damaging the gel structure that allows it to hold a semi-rigid shape. Take a hot knife and slice through the bottom of a jello cube sometime for an illustration of how this works.
Click to expand...
And then it regains its semi-rigid shape after six seconds? And if it loses its shape wouldn't it increase the floor area it covered?

Also, another problem is that the same maneuver is used to knock humanoids prone. And you can use different weapons, so you might be proning with a club, or your fist, or a net. And even if you justify that example, there many different proning powers, and some may imply that it's more of a shove than a trip, or a blow to the head, or a blow from a missile weapon, or that they fall down because they are dizzy or confused, or think they are falling in an illusory canyon, or for any other number of reasons - all of which you also have to justify as being the same maneuver or spell used on humanoid creatures with a very different mind and anatomy.
 
We talking 3e or 4e? I'm pretty sure oozes were immune to being knocked prone, no? Or am I thinking of critical hits?
 
DangerousPuhson said:
We talking 3e or 4e? I'm pretty sure oozes were immune to being knocked prone, no? Or am I thinking of critical hits?
Click to expand...
In 4e, oozes are not immune to being knocked prone:
Prone
* The creature is lying down. However, if the creature is climbing or flying, it falls.
* The only way the creature can move is by crawling, teleporting, or being pulled, pushed, or slid.
* The creature takes a -2 penalty to attack rolls.
* The creature grants combat advantage to attackers making melee attacks against it, but it gains a +2 bonus to all defenses against ranged attacks from attackers that aren't adjacent to it.

A creature can end this condition on itself by standing up. A creature can drop prone as a minor action.
This condition can affect limbless creatures, such as fish and snakes, as well as amorphous creatures, such as oozes. When such a creature falls prone, imagine it is writhing or unsteady, rather than literally lying down. The game effect on that creature is the same as for other creatures.
Click to expand...
[Emphasis added]

The justification almost works, if you don't consider that many of the powers are difficult to describe as doing this, and if you can figure out a way to explain why being "writhing or unsteady" makes you harder to hit at range.
 
To me, this is the point where I feel it's more of a boardgame than a roleplaying game (even if technically not true). Fiction first, I say: If it just doesn't make any sense in the fiction, then make a ruling to override the mechanics. And if it's an ooze-centric campaign, make a new rule.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top