Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DinoInDisguise" data-source="post: 9442857" data-attributes="member: 7045806">Is this not just presuming player intent? Why assume the motive here? What do we gain under that presumption?What if the player was just trying to find a creative solution to the problem presented and was acting on flavor alone without so much as a thought to the underlying mechanic? To me this is a difference worth exploring. Mainly because if we act under the assumption of malice, the game kind of fails at many levels.It is easy to come up with many examples of places where DM malice could break the game in unpleasant ways. And it is equally as easy to imagine instances where players can, with malicious intent, twist the rules to suit an ill-conceived motive. Whether the DM allows it, would be an open question.If we are presuming malice, I'd argue the focus on command is wholly too small in scope and a large scale expansion on the rules, the likes we have never seen, would be required to even make the smallest dent on such behavior.If we presume good faith, we have to ask ourselves what purpose removing options like this serves. As any removal of options limits player and DM agency. For instance, one can argue the ease of memorization of rules versus the ease of making a ruling in the role of being a DM when debating a change. But to argue potential malicious intent is to cite an unsolvable problem as justification for a rules change. In my opinion the latter is misguided as the underlying goal is unachievable.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DinoInDisguise, post: 9442857, member: 7045806"] Is this not just presuming player intent? Why assume the motive here? What do we gain under that presumption? What if the player was just trying to find a creative solution to the problem presented and was acting on flavor alone without so much as a thought to the underlying mechanic? To me this is a difference worth exploring. Mainly because if we act under the assumption of malice, the game kind of fails at many levels. It is easy to come up with many examples of places where DM malice could break the game in unpleasant ways. And it is equally as easy to imagine instances where players can, with malicious intent, twist the rules to suit an ill-conceived motive. Whether the DM allows it, would be an open question. If we are presuming malice, I'd argue the focus on command is wholly too small in scope and a large scale expansion on the rules, the likes we have never seen, would be required to even make the smallest dent on such behavior. If we presume good faith, we have to ask ourselves what purpose removing options like this serves. As any removal of options limits player and DM agency. For instance, one can argue the ease of memorization of rules versus the ease of making a ruling in the role of being a DM when debating a change. But to argue potential malicious intent is to cite an unsolvable problem as justification for a rules change. In my opinion the latter is misguided as the underlying goal is unachievable. [/QUOTE]

Verification