D&D 5E "Damage on a miss" poll.

[Ahnehnois]

The character with GWF is relentless. GWF is a game element; the character's relentlessness is an in-fiction phenomenon. GWF doesn't cause the relentlessness, and is not a "boost to determination; it expresses the character's determination in mechanical terms.

What is that supposed to mean? Whether you explain it as relentlessness or not is irrelevant, it is a discrete package of something. A character may or may not have GWF, but whether or not this is the case is known, and is a choice of the player, and is an intransient property of the character, and is discrete and separable from any other property of the character. And that something has an effect only under the condition of the character failing the task. That's hard to rationalize regardless of whether you describe the something as a discrete skill or a manifest character trait or a nebulous cloud of luck.

My explanation is only a "process simulation" to the extent that the mechanics of acquiring the character ability explicitly require. You can go very abstract or very metagame with trying to explain how it works, but the bottom line is that this is an ability that a character acquires and uses in a systematic, reproducible way.

 

[urLordy]

However, a character with this ability is no fiercer or more determined when he is hitting someone than a character without this ability is.

How do you know? Maybe that determination explains why s/he hit?

Even objectively -- determination in itself is not a total argument for guaranteed results, as implied by "How do you know?"

A soldier in WWI might be utterly determined to survive a bloody battle, but other factors may conspire against him. Determination may be a small or big factor, but it's not the decisive variable there.

You know how you have those movies where Harrison Ford looks very, very determined. That determination seems to "explain" why he survives against all odds. But nobody believes that really. It's been predetermined that Harrison Ford's character will save the day because he's the protaganist and it's the genre rules for Hollywood action. Translocate him to Game of Thrones and determination could be an epitaph on his grave.

The GWF DoaM fighter has been predetermined to always hurt his opponents in some way. Like the Hollywood movie, "determination" is what you came up with when you work your way backwards from the preordained results to some fictional cause. How does Ahn know to the contrary? Because he's not watching the same movie with a predetermined Hollywood ending for the GWF fighter, and he can play out the plot to experience causally if never missing does in fact happen or not, and can easily imagine a GWF fighter who is determined and still doesn't hit, thus muddling with suspension of disbelief.

 

[ImperatorK]

The last post is a simple statement of fact, showing that even if one chooses not to use the damage-on-a-miss mechanic it can still have an effect on them in play (by being used on them by another player , a monster, etc.)and thus is still "pissing in their corn flakes". Again, you want to know how I feel about something ask me, don't ascribe motives to a post speaking in the hypothetical.

Considering that you're against the ability and it's your argument, not someone else's, it's clear that it pisses in your cornflakes as well, thus it upsets you, because I don't know what other definition of "pissing in your cornflakes" there is. And no "it's close enough to being angry" BS, please. There's no word playing involved, only using words as they are meant.

That's hard to rationalize for me

FTFY.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Even objectively -- determination in itself is not a total argument for guaranteed results, as implied by "How do you know?"

True, though I doubt pemerton would agree.

The argument I'm making is independent of that. I'm saying that even if determination were a valid rationale (or if you decide that hey, you don't need any rationale), it doesn't make sense that the determination manifests in this way.

There are several discrete and independently valid arguments as to why damage on a miss is wrong.

The GWF DoaM fighter has been predetermined to always hurt his opponents in some way. Like the Hollywood movie, "determination" is what you came up with when you work your way backwards from the preordained results to some fictional cause. How does Ahn know to the contrary? Because he's not watching the same movie with a predetermined Hollywood ending for the GWF fighter, and he can play out the plot to experience causally if never missing does in fact happen or not, and can easily imagine a GWF fighter who is determined and still doesn't hit, thus muddling with suspension of disbelief.

Well, yes. pemerton's probably arguing that DoaM is a "player fiat" ability that exists outside of the reality of hte game world and is not subject to this kind of logic. Which is a pretty dubious rationale in this context. And you're right, one that is very stylistically inappropriate for many games, inconsistent with the generally grounded nature of this ruleset, and is hardly suitable for a D&D character class.

 

[Imaro]

Considering that you're against the ability and it's your argument, not someone else's, it's clear that it pisses in your cornflakes as well, thus it upsets you, because I don't know what other definition of "pissing in your cornflakes" there is. And no "it's close enough to being angry" BS, please. There's no word playing involved, only using words as they are meant.

So again, you're back to telling me what I feel... You used the term "pissing in your cornflakes"and I countered your arguments with reasons why the mechanic would affect one side even though they chose not to use it... which again addressed your argument that it was only pissing in the cornflakes of one side as opposed to the other of the debate. Now during this exchange I didn't once tell you how you felt about anything so I'll tell you once again, do not ascribe motivations to me and don't presume to know what I feel about anything unless you've asked me. It's a pretty simple concept and I'm not sure why you're having this much trouble with it.

Upset, angry... whatever the point is you don't know what I am thinking or feeling, all you know is what argument I presented to counter the one you made... everything else is just playing on petty semantics.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Nope. But honestly, if people cannot stand this so much that the mere presence of it in the rules, possibly used by a player other than them at the same table, is so objectionable that they don't want to play - then I think it's possible I don't want them playing it anyway. I

If we're playing baseball, and you get to use a rule that says you can go to first base after striking out, if affects my enjoyment of the game, even if that rule doesn't apply to me, so yes, I won't play if certain rules are in place. In fact, the inclusion of such a rule poisons the game more than someone refusing to use said rule or play in a game with that rule in place.

 

[Mistwell]

The last post is a simple statement of fact, showing that even if one chooses not to use the damage-on-a-miss mechanic it can still have an effect on them in play (by being used on them by another player , a monster, etc.)and thus is still "pissing in their corn flakes". Again, you want to know how I feel about something ask me, don't ascribe motives to a post speaking in the hypothetical.

OAN: Angry is close enough to "being upset" so let's not play word games.

You sound bothered.

 

[Imaro]

You sound bothered.

Hmmm, that's interesting. Are you asking me or telling me? Better yet would it be more prudent to ask me as opposed to assuming?

Honestly I find relying on a purely written medium alone to convey feelings like bothered or upset can often lead to wrong assumptions. I mean I could tell you what you "sound" like to me in the posts where we've interacted... but if I really wanted to know I would think asking would probably be a much better approach.

 

[ImperatorK]

So again, you're back to telling me what I feel... You used the term "pissing in your cornflakes"and I countered your arguments with reasons why the mechanic would affect one side even though they chose not to use it... which again addressed your argument that it was only pissing in the cornflakes of one side as opposed to the other of the debate. Now during this exchange I didn't once tell you how you felt about anything so I'll tell you once again, do not ascribe motivations to me and don't presume to know what I feel about anything unless you've asked me. It's a pretty simple concept and I'm not sure why you're having this much trouble with it.

I call em how I see em.

Upset, angry... whatever the point is you don't know what I am thinking or feeling, all you know is what argument I presented to counter the one you made... everything else is just playing on petty semantics.

I'd rather use "petty semantics" than use non-issues as arguments. I agree, I was wrong when I said "No, not really", but it's such a small thing that I might as well be right. And it really is a small thing. No normal person is going to have a problem with something they don't like if it hardly impacts them in any significant way. You do it all day every day in real life.
It's quite simple really. Regardless of your emotions, if the ability pisses in your cornflakes that means you have some kind of problem with it. If you didn't, it wouldn't be pissing in your cornflakes, now would it? Even if it makes you angry, upset, unhappy, whatever, it's a personal problem, not the ability's fault.

BTW. It's very telling that my restaurant analogy was completely ignored, as well as some of my other posts (although most of them were written half-jokingly).
EDIT: Another post ignored. Figures.

 

[Mistwell]

If we're playing baseball, and you get to use a rule that says you can go to first base after striking out, if affects my enjoyment of the game, even if that rule doesn't apply to me, so yes, I won't play if certain rules are in place. In fact, the inclusion of such a rule poisons the game more than someone refusing to use said rule or play in a game with that rule in place.

I'm done with the analogies. They're not helpful when we're talking about a game we all play. I've played with a ton of D&D players, and I am sure you have to. Everyone's bugged by something, but most reasonable players don't refuse to play over one thing. The guys who throw a fit over a single rule to the point where they cannot even enjoy the game if the DM uses that rule are usually the trouble players. It's a red flag. That's my experience anyway.