D&D General Rant: Sometimes I Hate the D&D Community

[GMforPowergamers]

To be clear, I was referring to demonstrable misinterpretations, etc. Cases where people claim the rules say X, but when you check the rules it does not say X, and in reality X is a common misrepresentation of the rules made by haters of a particular ruleset.

I don't know if you have been following some of my examples... but we have people arguing definitions of words as being 1st definition not 2nd definition to 'prove' they are ones reading it right... and then the argument comes up weather 1 rule is an exception or the default, and if the OTHER rule is then the exception or default

An opinion on whether or not there should be social skills is not something that can really be informed by demonstrable misunderstandings, since it's very much a matter of preference.

except in those threads people have line for line quotes from PHB and DMG to 'prove' those skills can't be used and shouldnt even be there.

So it's not an example of what I'm talking about.

lets take skill checks then.

If my player tells me "Can I make a stealth check" and I understand what they mean in context (or "can I make an arcana check" or "Can I make a perception check") but at least 3 different posters constantly in skill check threads quote and quote saying that is not the right way and they can prove it... When I explain that you CAN be specific (as much or as little as you want as long as it relays intent) I have 1 of those poster actually tell me I am not only not following the rules, not only am I using older edition to influence (both I disagree with to begin with) BUT i am railroading my players and showing my OWN bias by letting them say anything as long as I understand it...the word cheating has been thrown my way here on enworld more then once over this... and again, those posters (I hope they are not just trolls) believe they have read the rules, understand the rules, and I am not reading the rules, not understanding the rules and in some cases cheating. I mean while give example after example of why I don't want to force my players to use the words they do.

 

[Oofta]

This is true - but you might note that if the person saying they prefer evil orcs provides their reasoning as to why. they are less likely to have motives ascribed to them, since their motives are explicitly stated.

Yet people do make assumptions and accusations if you state that orcs are evil in your campaign. That it's somehow inherently wrong and that even though orcs are imaginary you are prejudiced if orcs are evil. That you support real world genocide.

It doesn't matter if you explain why or that you've thought about it over the years or that you have in world logic and reasoning.

 

[Reynard]

Yet people do make assumptions and accusations if you state that orcs are evil in your campaign. That it's somehow inherently wrong and that even though orcs are imaginary you are prejudiced if orcs are evil. That you support real world genocide.

It doesn't matter if you explain why or that you've thought about it over the years or that you have in world logic and reasoning.

I literally got got racist IRL for saying I hate gnomes so

 

[Guest 7034872]

Yet people do make assumptions and accusations if you state that orcs are evil in your campaign. That it's somehow inherently wrong and that even though orcs are imaginary you are prejudiced if orcs are evil. That you support real world genocide.

It doesn't matter if you explain why or that you've thought about it over the years or that you have in world logic and reasoning.

Because evidence is not what motivates them in that moment. It isn't about how plausibly or implausibly the real-world consequences they fear might flow from or to your chosen game preferences; it's about how powerful those fears are.

 

[Bagpuss]

* There is a small exception here, which is someone that plays the game in a way that actively hurts other people. If your game is racist, sexist, or otherwise offensive/harmful, you are not protected by the "it's just a different playstyle" defense.

And you were doing so well.

Suffice to say I agree in principle with your exception (certainly the first sentence), but I have issues with your Wrong Fun thread argument that you linked. I would cover it there, but seriously that thread is over a year old, on a contentious issue, and who wants to talk about nuance, of real world racism/sexism verse fantasy versions of racism and sexism, and what is direct or indirect harm, or even what constitutes harm.

 

[Bagpuss]

At the Badwrongfun Anonymous meeting;

"Hi, My name is aco175, and I like flanking."

So you won't mind if I slap some sense into you on both cheeks at the same time! You pour delusional fellow.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

And you were doing so well.

Suffice to say I agree in principle with your exception (certainly the first sentence), but I have issues with your Wrong Fun thread argument that you linked. I would cover it there, but seriously that thread is over a year old, on a contentious issue, and who wants to talk about nuance, of real world racism/sexism verse fantasy versions of racism and sexism, and what is direct or indirect harm, or even what constitutes harm.

Okay. I'll bite. What do you take issue with? Do you think that fun can be wrong when everyone is having fun and aren't hurting anyone, or do you think that fun can't be wrong ever, even if it is hurting people? Because those are the only two options for disagreeing with the premise of the other thread.

 

[Bagpuss]

Because those are the only two options for disagreeing with the premise of the other thread.

That's my point about nuance. From the other thread...

If a whole group at the table has fun playing D&D because they're using racial slurs and base all of their races off of real life racial stereotypes, that is directly at the expense of those real-life racial/cultural groups and thus the table's fun is wrong.

Knife-ear is a racial slur, "stunty" is a racial slur. To me they aren't causing harm, the animosity between elves and dwarves is a well known fantasy trope.

I don't see violent inherently evil orcs as based of a real life racial stereotype, other people do, but those other people aren't at my table, and won't hear about the game so how it "directly" at their expense or hurting them in anyway?

 

[AnotherGuy]

Okay. I'll bite. What do you take issue with? Do you think that fun can be wrong when everyone is having fun and aren't hurting anyone, or do you think that fun can't be wrong ever, even if it is hurting people? Because those are the only two options for disagreeing with the premise of the other thread.

I'm struggling to understand how your table hurts me or how my table hurts you.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Okay. I'll bite. What do you take issue with? Do you think that fun can be wrong when everyone is having fun and aren't hurting anyone, or do you think that fun can't be wrong ever, even if it is hurting people? Because those are the only two options for disagreeing with the premise of the other thread.

I think that for any complex issue, the devil is always in the details.

No one but an anti-social sadist, or a bard (but I repeat myself), would argue in favor of hurting someone.

But I think that a lot of people can, and do, argue about what constitutes "harm." Without taking a side on that issue, that's usually what's going on.