Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8395781" data-attributes="member: 6801228">And studies have also shown that they increase safety. Yes, cities get money from speeding tickets. That doesn't invalidate the safety concerns, and after 120 years, I think it would be more controversial to have them if they were utterly pointless. People still get drunk and drive. Yes, laws punish those people for engaging in that behavior. But also, because the laws exist, some people don't get drunk and then drive, because they know they shouldn't and they could get in trouble for doing so. I will never say that laws prevent all crime from ever happening, but they do reduce it. Because some people won't break the law, but would do the activity if it wasn't breaking the law.So, because I want to change the perception of DM authority, my proposed rules won't work. And you can't tell me what those rules are (because I never proposed any) just that I must be planning on proposing rules, because that is the only way to change things, is to implement rules. Well, this will obviously be a useful discussion as you knock down a fake facsimile of my point to prove that rules I never proposed will never work. Good job beating up a fake argument to strengthen your own. If only we had a word for that...It's pretty simple. You keep arguing that any changes we make to how the game is perceived and talked about will be ignored by DMs who are abusing their authority, because they will just keep doing the things they are doing. But that ignores the fact that societal pressures and expectations can change, and can cause changes in people who are on the border. Sure, the worst DM offenders will never stop, but nothing will ever stop them, that doesn't mean we shouldn't work on preventing more people from sliding down that slope.And it is still arguing to keep the status quo because it is the status quo. Can you stop nitpicking terminology long enough to actually engage with the point I'm making? I've spent half this post just re-explaining the last post and just asking the same questions, because you refuse to actually discuss anything. If you don't want to do more than declare "RAW!!!!" as loudly as you can, congrats, you've done that. Disengage. If you are actually interested in a discussion, then stop ignoring what I'm saying and causing me to continuously repeat myself. And yes, I know. "You can't tell me what to do or what to write". As you always respond, but seriously, you are just wasting both of our times if you aren't going to actually discuss anything. You've planted your flag. Congrats. Either engage in a discussion, or move on and leave that flag waving proudly.Accounts of what? Are you going to somehow create a seperate DnD microcosm of different beliefs, teach new people to play in that microcosm, and then show that they exhibit identical behaviors to people who grew up in the main DnD culture? I'd be impressed if you could actually pull that off.Seems like they have been a real enough issue to drive people from the game, force large numbers of DMs to take up the title and work to be better, and spawn entire websites full of examples. I mean, you've had bad DMs, I've had bad DMs, Matt Mercer had at least one Bad DM, my friend Kyle had multiple bad DMs, I'm sure many people on these forums have had bad DMs. For a "small minority" it seems pretty widespread.My example was proving a trend. I never even claimed they were identical scenarios. This is like you saying I can't use steam coming off soup to say the soup is hot based on what I know about water, because comparing soup and water is a false equivalence. I never claimed they were identical, just pointing to evidence for comparison.You wanted to say that "going forward with the truth" is healty. Well, back in 1776, the land that became the United States of America was in truth a British Colony. If they had just "gone with the truth" and let the status quo remain, they would have stayed a British Colony. Does this mean that truth is bad? No. But it can mean that just being "true" doesn't mean it can't and shouldn't be changed. Climate Change is True, doesn't mean we shouldn't be acting to change it, because it is kind of bad for us. Going forward as we are with fossil fuels isn't healthy. Just saying "but it is true that our power relies on fossil fuels, so you can't change it." is dangerous.You said my proposed rules won't work. I've never proposed any rules. I have acknowledged that if there are rules that need to be changed, we should change them. That is not the same as proposing new rules.</blockquote>

Verification