Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dausuul" data-source="post: 6394706" data-attributes="member: 58197">The response is not only flawed without the expanded answer, it isn't even an answer! The person complaining certainly knows that the DM can interpret the rules--this is ENWorld, not Role-Playing Games 101. But interpreting rules is work, imposing a cost (however small) in time and cognitive effort. You need to provide a reason why that work is worth doing or you aren't answering the complaint.The exact same Oberoni response could be applied to any complaint of poor writing and ambiguity in the rules. If it is sufficient to respond to such complaints with &quot;The DM can interpret the rules, so there isn't a problem,&quot; that means there cannot ever be a problem with poorly written ambiguous rules--even in cases where that ambiguity is not in fact speeding up play or reducing rules-lawyering.As an example of the latter, I'll put out 5E magic missile and the Empowered Evocation ability (which adds your Int modifier to the damage roll of any evocation spell you cast). The way Empowered Evocation is written, it's not clear if you add Int mod to the damage of every missile, or once per target, or once for the whole spell. This is not an area where the DM has value to add by adjudicating on a case-by-case basis. Nor is it an obscure corner case; magic missile is a favorite low-level damage spell, and a generous reading of Empowered Evocation can increase its damage output by almost two-thirds compared to a narrow reading. Nor would it require a half column of jargon to clarify what it means. This really is just an ambiguous, poorly-written rule.But the DM can interpret it, so it's not a problem.No, I didn't. Someone else said that. You and I were discussing your claim that there was something wrong with the concept of the Oberoni fallacy. The phrase &quot;Oberoni fallacy&quot; was invented during the 3E period, so a 3E example seemed appropriate.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dausuul, post: 6394706, member: 58197"] The response is not only flawed without the expanded answer, it isn't even an answer! The person complaining certainly knows that the DM can interpret the rules--this is ENWorld, not Role-Playing Games 101. But interpreting rules is work, imposing a cost (however small) in time and cognitive effort. You need to provide a reason why that work is worth doing or you aren't answering the complaint. The exact same Oberoni response could be applied to any complaint of poor writing and ambiguity in the rules. If it is sufficient to respond to such complaints with "The DM can interpret the rules, so there isn't a problem," that means there [I]cannot ever[/I] be a problem with poorly written ambiguous rules--even in cases where that ambiguity is not in fact speeding up play or reducing rules-lawyering. As an example of the latter, I'll put out 5E [I]magic missile[/I] and the Empowered Evocation ability (which adds your Int modifier to the damage roll of any evocation spell you cast). The way Empowered Evocation is written, it's not clear if you add Int mod to the damage of every missile, or once per target, or once for the whole spell. This is not an area where the DM has value to add by adjudicating on a case-by-case basis. Nor is it an obscure corner case; [I]magic missile[/I] is a favorite low-level damage spell, and a generous reading of Empowered Evocation can increase its damage output by almost two-thirds compared to a narrow reading. Nor would it require a half column of jargon to clarify what it means. This really is just an ambiguous, poorly-written rule. But the DM can interpret it, so it's not a problem. No, I didn't. Someone else said that. You and I were discussing your claim that there was something wrong with the concept of the Oberoni fallacy. The phrase "Oberoni fallacy" was invented during the 3E period, so a 3E example seemed appropriate. [/QUOTE]

Verification