Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DinoInDisguise" data-source="post: 9442935" data-attributes="member: 7045806">Every rule change has a cost. Every time a rule specifies more precise action, you remove a tiny bit of creative freedom from the players. Each table becomes slightly more homogenized. You inch closer to determinism.So anytime you propose a more specific rule, you are making a cost benefit analysis of that trade off. What is gained versus what is lost.In my post, I tried to articulate that malicious intent is not a goal that you can make reasonable progress against. And as a whole, cannot be eliminated. We see this as true in law as well. Criminals exist.So any argument that starts with &quot;well one could ...&quot; largely falls flat. Because we know from human behavior, and 2000+ years of governance, that you can't stop bad behavior. A DM that would rule the way you describe, will simply twist the words in another way, or move the malice to another rule. So you paid the cost, but gain no benefit.It's a never ending game of whack-a-mole that ends with a game where no agency remains. Everything is scripted by rule as all creativity was found to be abused by bad actors.Potential malice is simply not a sustainable or productive reason for rule changes.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DinoInDisguise, post: 9442935, member: 7045806"] Every rule change has a cost. Every time a rule specifies more precise action, you remove a tiny bit of creative freedom from the players. Each table becomes slightly more homogenized. You inch closer to determinism. So anytime you propose a more specific rule, you are making a cost benefit analysis of that trade off. What is gained versus what is lost. In my post, I tried to articulate that malicious intent is not a goal that you can make reasonable progress against. And as a whole, cannot be eliminated. We see this as true in law as well. Criminals exist. So any argument that starts with "well one could ..." largely falls flat. Because we know from human behavior, and 2000+ years of governance, that you can't stop bad behavior. A DM that would rule the way you describe, will simply twist the words in another way, or move the malice to another rule. So you paid the cost, but gain no benefit. It's a never ending game of whack-a-mole that ends with a game where no agency remains. Everything is scripted by rule as all creativity was found to be abused by bad actors. Potential malice is simply not a sustainable or productive reason for rule changes. [/QUOTE]

Verification